9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest and penalty as proposed in the Show Cause Notice dated 27th March,2018. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aerated water and fruit-based beverages classifiable under Chapter 22 of the First schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. An audit of the excise and service tax records was carried out at the premises of the appellant, it was noticed that the Appellant has not paid due service tax under reverse charge mechanism on services received from Rent-a-Cab service providers and expenses booked under the heads 'vehicle hire charges', 'motor car' expenses and amount paid to director for car hire charges. The above lead to issue of audit memo dated 05th October 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause cum demand notice. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Ankit Kanodia, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. He contended that the demand of service tax under Renta- Cab service is not sustainable for the following reasons: (i) There is no finding as to who the supplier of service is either in the Show cause notice or in the impugned order to confirm the demand under reverse charge mechanism of service tax under Rent-a-Cab service provided as per Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012. (ii) That the demand is based only on the assumptions and presumptions of the Ld. Adjudicating authority that the expenses under the motor car expenses ledger relates to expenses incurred by the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 to 2015-16 along with sample invoice copies. It is his submission that the demand is also barred by limitation as the demand pertains to the period from 2012-13 to 2015-16 whereas the SCN was issued on 21st August 2018 much after the expiry of normal period of limitation. 4. The learned Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent, justified the order of the lower authority. 5. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 6. In the instant case, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of recovery of service tax without appreciating any of the documents as produced by the Appellant with reply to the show cause notice. From the case records, it is seen that fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses clearly not to be one of Rent-a-Cab service at all. Thus, the deeming fiction adopted by the Ld. Adjudicating authority cannot be sustained and thus, the demand cannot survive on this ground. As regards amount paid to Director for car hire charges, we find that the Appellant has not disputed the service tax liability on said amounts and that the same has been paid in the returns filed by the Appellant, we thus do not find any ground to make any observations on the same. Further, on perusal of records, we find that the demand has been raised for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16 in 2018. No explanation has been furthered by the Department in respect of such gross delay in proceeding with the matter. Therefore, we find that invocation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
