9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142 and 174 of the CGST Act. 2017 on the amount of Service Tas mentioned at Para 30.1 above shall be recovered from them, 30.3 also impose Penalty of Rs.6.64,07,784/- (Rupees Sis Crore. Sixty Four Lakh. Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty Four only) upon them under Section 78 of the Act ibid read with Section 142 and 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 for non-payment of service tax as mentioned at 30.1 above. 30.4 I also impose Penalty of Rs.20,000/- (Rs: Twenty Thousand Only) upon them under Rule 76 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 70 of the Finance Act. 1994, for not filing the ST-3 return for the period April, 2012 to June. 2012." 2.1 This appeal was earlier decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.70065-70066/2022 dated 04.02.2022. Tribunal vide the Final Order held as follows:- "14. From the entire above discussion, it has been held that the demands on several counts have wrongly been confirmed. The Adjudicating Authority is rather held to have violated the principles of judicial discipline. The SCN is held to be barred by time. Both the orders under challenge are, therefore, hereby set aside. Consequent thereto, bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een discharged by the respondent and confirmed the demand of Rs.6,64,07,784/-. Challenging the same an appeal was filed before the Tribunal which has been allowed. Hence the present appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that earlier similar inquiry was conducted by the department in regard to the period 2002-03 to 2006-07 which had culminated into issuance of Service Tax demand for an amount of Rs.3,30,81,610/- with an equal amount of penalty vide show cause notice dated 16.10.2008, that too, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The entire demand was confirmed by means of the order dated 30% of October, 2009 by the adjudicating authority. However on challenge being made to the said order, the Tribunal vide its final order No.70112/2015 dated 17.12.2015 had set aside the entire demand. The said order was challenged by the appellant before this court in Central Excise Appeal No.7 of 2016 (Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow Versus Anand Motor Agency, Lucknow). This court by means of the order dated 13.04.2017 disposed of the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal on the ground that issue involved in the appeal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout giving any finding on service tax liability of the respondent on Agency Commission from Maruti Udyog Ltd., DGS&D and non-registration of the respondent's unit No.1 i.e. 21 Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow?" 10. The first question was not pressed by the appellant as the same was already subject matter of question No.2. With regard to question No.2 after considering the statement of the appellant under the order in appeal this court found that there was no discussion on the aspect of issue involved in the appeal and the same was not dealt with. Hence the matter was remanded to consider the aspects involved in appeal and findings of Commissioner of Central Excise. It is not disputed by the parties that after remand the matter is still pending before the Tribunal for adjudication. However, the Tribunal by observing in paragraph 8 of the impugned order that the entire demand of show cause notice dated 16.10.2008 on several issues (seems to have wrongly been mentioned as 16.10.2018) stands set aside by the order No.70112/2015 of the Tribunal dated 17.12.2015 and apparently no appeal has been filed by the department against the said order, therefore the said decision attained final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional circumstances, shall be granted with the leave of the court only. 2.3 Thus this appeal is being heard as remanded by the Hon'ble High Court. 3.1 Have heard Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Shri Manish Raj, Learned Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the Appellant learned counsel submits that * Service Tax liability on the following issues is in dispute:- * Service Tax on Insurance Commission * Service Tax on Finance Payouts * Service Tax on Incentive received from MUL * Service Tax on Handling & Logistic Charges * Service Tax amounting to Rs.2,87,02,194/- on Repairing, reconditioning, restoration service * Service Tax on Reimbursement of Expenses from MUL * Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism on entire expenses appearing in the audited Profit & Loss Account. * In respect of the service tax on finance payouts the service tax is being paid on the regular basis. Fact that has been noted in the impugned order liability is being accepted and is being pay out basis and in respect of required maintenance. Para 19(C) & Para 20 of the Order-In-Original is reproduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... * the Tribunal made an error in setting aside the demands which had been already accepted by the Appellant and paid needs to be rectified and appropriated. 3.3 Learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Respondent has reiterated the finding recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with order of tribunal (Final Order No 70065-7066/2022 dated 04.02.2022) and the order of Hon'ble High Court remanding the matter for reconsideration in light of the observations made. 4.2 In the Final Order no 70832/2024 dated 09.12.2024 (ST/200/2010) we have considered the Hon'ble High Court in remanding the matter, and the present appeal have to be considered in terms of the order passed in that appeal. The relevant para of the order dated 09.12.2024 is reproduced below: "3.5 Hon'ble High Court has remanded the matter for reconsideration of the said demand. Appellant do not dispute the said demand in this remand proceedings as the same was never under challenge even in the appeal filed by them. They have admitted this demand of Rs 42,799/- even at the time of adjudication. Thus we uphold the demand made in respect of this amount and set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econditioning of motor vehicles by 23 challans as mentioned in the said report which were found duly included in the list of 265 challans amounting to a total of Rs.4,13,40,105/-. Both the orders under challenge have been passed prior to the said verification report. However, in the light of said verification report, it stands clear that the demand on this account also cannot be confirmed. 4.4 Since demands in this response have been admitted and paid by the Appellant the Tribunal should have in the first stage itself confirmed the demand and appropriated the said demand against the confirmed demand which has not been done in the earlier round which we do now in the remand proceeding as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. 4.5 Apart from this there is no other issue requiring adjudication as was observed by us in earlier order dated 09.12.2024 in Para 3.5 (Reproduced above). Earlier order of the Tribunal in these appeals i.e. 70065-70066 / 2022 is modified to the extent of these demands which have been admitted by the appellant and paid. The amount paid by the appellant against these admitted liabilities will be appropriated against the amounts confirmed. 4.6 As we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
