TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he receipts indicated in the impugned order are clearly not by way of consideration for any service rendered. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the stand taken by the Commissioner to exclude such amounts from the gross value of taxable services. The amount towards manpower supply as well as cleaning service can be considered for exclusion if such amounts have been received as consideration for providing these services, during the period prior to 16.06.2005. The Table as well as accompanying documents, even though duly certified by the Chartered Accountant, does not substantiate the above consideration. As such, we are unable to extend the deduction of such value for determination of service tax liability. The matter is remanded to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k statement, the Officers noticed that the appellant had realized an amount of ₹ 103.25 Crores, but they reportedly declared only an amount of ₹ 88.40 Crores as amount realized during the period 2003-04 to 2007-08 in their ST-3 Returns. After scrutiny of the records and recording the statement of the proprietor of the appellant, the Department proceeded to issue show-cause notice dated 17.10.2008 proposing the demand of service tax for an amount of ₹ 2.04 Crores and Education Cess of ₹ 5.8 lakhs. Appropriate interest on the due service tax amount as well as penalties under Sections 76 78 were proposed in the show-cause notice. After due process of adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oy, ld.D.R.. 7. The submissions made by the ld.C.A., are summarized below : (i) The assessee has provided security service, manpower supply as well as cleaning service during the period of dispute. As far as security service is concerned, the demand is admitted by the assessee. However, in respect of manpower supply as well as cleaning service, it is submitted that there is no justification for demand of service tax for the amount received towards these services prior to date of their introduction in the Statute i.e. 16.06.2005. (ii) The ld. Commissioner in the impugned order, has declined to allow the deduction towards the above two services by considering the entire receipts as pertaining to security service. (iii) He also sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions made by the assessee before him and have excluded various amounts received in the Bank towards interbank transfers, refund of EMD/FDR encashment, cheque returned and other charges. Show-cause notice has been originally issued by taking into account the entire receipt in the Bank account. However, it is evident that the receipts indicated in the impugned order are clearly not by way of consideration for any service rendered. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the stand taken by the Commissioner to exclude such amounts from the gross value of taxable services. Hence, we reject the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Cross Objection also gets disposed off. 12. The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anpower supply as well as cleaning service can be considered for exclusion if such amounts have been received as consideration for providing these services, during the period prior to 16.06.2005. The Table as well as accompanying documents, even though duly certified by the Chartered Accountant, does not substantiate the above consideration. As such, we are unable to extend the deduction of such value for determination of service tax liability. 14. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for re-quantifying of the demand and passing denovo order, after duly considering the claim of the appellant for deduction of manpower supply and cleaning agency service to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
