TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant (the service provider) for providing services of Packaging activity to M/s HEG (service recipient) stands discharged by the provider as well as the recipient to the extent of 50% each. There is also no denial to the fact that appellant itself is the manufacturer of the wooden crates i.e. the packing material used while providing the said service to M/s HEG is also manufactured by appellant the service provider and that the service is provided in M/s HEG premises itself. It is observed that 100% tax has already been paid w.r.t. the impugned taxable service of packaging in terms of the Notification No. 30/2012. Then notification applies to WCS and apparently the activity rendered by appellant is WCS. Hence payment of 50% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as used to be received by them from M/s HEG. However, during the audit of appellant s unit, department noted that the appellants started paying tax on only 50% of said amount of consideration received by them in lieu of services provided. On being enquired the appellant informed about an agreement with M/s HEG dated May 02, 2014 as was executed after introduction of Work Contract Service WCS wherein their services were considered as the Works Contract Service. Hence the appellants started taking benefit of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012, according to which the service provider of WCS was liable to pay 50% of the leviable tax and remaining 50% of the leviable tax was the liability of recipient of the said service. 2. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the premises M/s HEG itself. The packaging activity involved element of goods as well as the element of service. Hence, it was the works contract service to which the Notification No. 30/2012 was applicable. In accordance with entry No. 9 therein 50% of the tax liability was to be discharged by the service provider which has been discharged by the appellant and remaining 50% by the service recipient, the same has been duly discharged by M/s HEG who has also issued the certificate to this effect. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority below have failed to consider these things. It is further impressed upon that exercise otherwise is revenue neutral as M/s HEG were eligible for Cenvat credit for the 50% amount of service tax paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rival contentions and pursuing the entire record. The issue to be decided is observed as follows : Whether the payment of 50% tax by the appellant and remaining 50% by recipient of its service resulted into short payment of duty, as alleged? 7. We observe from the order under challenge, it to be the admitted fact that 100% tax liability towards the amount of consideration received by the appellant (the service provider) for providing services of Packaging activity to M/s HEG (service recipient) stands discharged by the provider as well as the recipient to the extent of 50% each. There is also no denial to the fact that appellant itself is the manufacturer of the wooden crates i.e. the packing material used while providing the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emaining 50% of the liability stands discharged by the recipient of the service (M/s HEG). We draw support from the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd. versus Vice Chairman Settlement Commissioner, Chennai 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 151 (Kar.) . This decision has emphasized that where the Government received the entire amount of tax, an assessee cannot be called upon to make the payment even if it had deposited some portion of the tax dues and the remaining portion deposited by the service provider. This Tribunal also in the case of M/s Aadarsh Sri Sai Manpower Solution (P) Ltd. (supra), while relying upon case laws as relied upon by the Tribunal are : (i) Reliance Securities Ltd. versus Commissioner of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chemical versus Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.) . Above all charging of service tax again from the appellant the service provider when the liability has been discharged by him under forward mechanism and by the service recipient under the reverse charge mechanism to the extent of 50% each in terms of relevant notification, will amount to the double taxation on the same service, question of alleging an intent to evade payment of service is absolutely in irrelevant. The department is held to have wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation. We also draw support from Incredible Indian Moments Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 11. With these observations, the order under challenge is hereby set aside. Consequent there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
