9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1956. Audit was conducted in Jun.'16 and objections were raised. Pursuant to such audit, show-cause notice dated 01.08.2017 was issued proposing to demand an amount of Rs. 2,92,472/- on various allegations and also proposing to impose penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing the learned counsel Shri V. Ravindran explained the allegations raised in the show-cause notice, which are as under:- (i) The appellant, while filing the returns in Nov.'14 had shown the value of clearances as Rs. 87,00,621/- instead of showing Rs. 90,33,975/-. There were ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrectly discharged the service tax. If the figures in all the ST-3 returns for the whole year is taken, the amount would be above Rs. 10 lakhs. Thus, it is not understood on what basis the department has arrived the figures amounting to Rs. 6,26,117/- to compare with the figures of the Ledger Accounts maintained by the appellant. (iii) An amount of Rs. 4,993/- has been demanded as service tax payable under Rent-a-Cab Service. He submitted that the appellant is a service recipient and has to discharge service tax under reverse charge mechanism. The amount has been collected by the service provider from the appellant and paid to the Central Government. The appellant has furnished sufficient documents showing the payment of service tax on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a service recipient of a particular category has to discharge the service tax, if the service provider is not availing Cenvat credit. The appellant has not furnished documents to evidence payment of service tax and, therefore, the demand is correct. The penalties imposed for non-filing of returns is also legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5.0 The first issue is with regard to the allegation that the appellant has taken suo motto credit of Rs. 2,14,336/-. After perusal of records and hearing the submissions, it is seen that for few invoices the appellant discharged Central Excise duty and later these invoices were cancelled. Undisputedly, the appellant had intimated the department that these invoices are cancelled. After intimating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is directed to look into the receipt/documents produced by appellant to ensure whether the service tax has been discharged on the services. In case, the service provider has charged the entire service tax, the appellant cannot be further burdened by the same as has been decided in the case of M/s. General Manager, J.K. Sugars Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2016 (43) S.T.R.292 (Tri.-All.). 5.3 The learned counsel has pointed out that the appellant entity was formed in 2013-14 by taking over the entire Unit of PEEL. The authorities below have imposed penalty for non-filing of ER-7 returns for the period 2011-2012 and 2015-2016. The appellant having taken over the Unit only in 2013-14 cannot be saddled with guilt of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
