Appeal challenges service tax demand due to discrepancies in returns, arguing for payment based on actual receipts.

The appeal challenges a service tax demand based on discrepancies between the ST-3 return and profit/loss account. The appellant argues for tax payment based on actual receipts, citing excess payment in 2011-12, a disputed debtor due to PF deduction, and scrap sales not subject to tax. The Revenue contends lack of evidence. The Member notes the discrepancies and remands the matter for thorough verification, emphasizing the need to consider all relevant facts. The impugned order is set aside, and the case is remanded for a fresh decision based on verified facts, allowing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-appeal upholding service tax demand due to mismatch between ST-3 return and profit/loss account. Appellant argues for actual receipt-based tax payment, excess payment in 2011-12, debtor creation due to PF deduction by SCCL, and sale of scrap not attracting service tax. Revenue contends lack of documentary evidence supporting appellant's submissions.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the order-in-appeal confirming a service tax demand based on a discrepancy between the value declared in the ST-3 return and the profit and loss account. The appellant asserts that service tax should be paid on actual receipts, not accruals, highlighting an excess payment in 2011-12. Additionally, the appellant mentions a debtor created due to PF deduction by SCCL, which was later disputed, and part of the debtor amount related to the sale of scrap not subject to service tax. These aspects were not considered by the lower authorities, leading to the claim that the demand is unsustainable.

The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, supports the impugned order and argues that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate their submissions. Consequently, the Revenue asserts that the demand was correctly confirmed, emphasizing the lack of grounds for interference due to the absence of supporting documentation from the appellant.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Member (Judicial) notes the mismatch between the ST-3 return and the profit and loss account. Recognizing the need for proper reconciliation based on documentary evidence, the Member addresses the appellant's arguments regarding the debtor created from the PF deduction by SCCL. It is suggested that if the service tax was already paid on the amount deducted as PF and subsequently created as a debtor, double taxation should be avoided. The Member also acknowledges that the sale of scrap does not attract service tax but requires verification from the books of account. As the lower authorities did not verify these factual aspects, the matter is remanded for a fresh order after thorough verification of all relevant facts based on documentary evidence.

In conclusion, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision considering all the facts discussed, including the actual receipts for tax payment, the disputed debtor due to PF deduction, and the sale of scrap not liable for service tax. The appeal is allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of verifying all relevant facts based on documentary evidence.

---