TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority to substantiate their claim - For these reasons, the issue relating to the demand of ₹ 3,78,280/- is remanded to the adjudicating authority, to enable the appellant to produce the necessary documentary evidence and to prove that the same relates to expenses which were reimbursed by M/s. Shakti Sugars - matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/659/2012 - FINAL ORDER No. 40271/2019 - Dated:- 7-2-2019 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, Ms. Kanthi Visalakshi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar The appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso penalty imposed under Section 77 ibid and service tax amount already paid up by the appellant was appropriated. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated04.09.2012 upheld the order of the original authority. Hence this appeal. 2.1 Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Ms. Kanthi Visalakshi submits that except for an amount of ₹ 3,78,280/- relating to tax demanded on reimbursements, they had paid a total amount of ₹ 41,28,676/- out of the total demand of ₹ 45,06,956/- even before the issue of SCN dated 07.10.2010 and differential service tax of an amount of ₹ 3,79,198/- was paid on 09.11.2011 after the issue of adjudication order. She submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, Ld. AR drew our attention to para-25 of the adjudication order to point out that but for the visit of the officers non-payment of service tax in respect of services rendered to M/s. Shakti Sugars, Sivagangai unit would not have come to light. Hence, this is a clear case of suppression of facts and equal penalty under Section 78 is very much in order. On the plea of Ld. Advocate concerning reimbursable expenses, Ld. AR submits that no documentary proof has been submitted by the appellant at any stage of adjudication before both the authorities to justify its claim. 4.1 Notwithstanding the assertions of the Ld. AR, we find that the appellant had not discharged its service tax liability initially even for the Erode Unit and they had o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating authority shall also keep in mind the judgment of the Hon ble Apex court in Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (supra). However, considering that the issue relating to reimbursable expenses was mired in litigation for quite sometime till the Hon ble Apex Court settled the dispute in Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., there shall not be any penalty in the matter. 4.4 To sum up:- a) No interference is made with the demand of service tax relating to Manpower Recruitment and Supply Services amounting to ₹ 41,28,676/- with interest thereon. b) The issue in regard to the disputed amount of ₹ 3,78,280/- claimed to be relating to reimbursable expenses is remanded to the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
