Tribunal Confirms Service Tax Recovery Due to Late Payment and Insufficient Evidence; Appeal Dismissed with Penalties.

The Tribunal upheld the decision that the appellant failed to pay the service tax amount to the service provider within the stipulated period. Due to the appellant's absence and insufficient evidence, the Tribunal confirmed the recovery of service tax, interest, and penalties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original orders.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the recovery of service tax amount, reversal of Cenvat credit, imposition of interest and penalties, failure to appear before the Tribunal, non-payment of service tax by the appellant, and retention of security deposit.

Recovery of Service Tax Amount:
The appellant, registered for providing taxable services, engaged M/s. S.S. Infratech for constructing a residential complex. The department observed that the service tax amount of Rs.1,89,235/- was not paid by the appellant, although Cenvat credit of the same amount was availed. The recovery of the service tax amount was proposed under Rule 4(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Imposition of Interest and Penalties:
In addition to the service tax amount, an interest of Rs.1,279/- was proposed to be recovered for non-reversal of Cenvat credit within the prescribed time limit. The department also proposed to impose appropriate penalties on the appellant, which were confirmed in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal.

Failure to Appear Before the Tribunal:
Despite multiple opportunities given to the appellant to appear before the Tribunal, the appellant and the Authorized Representative remained absent. The Tribunal warned the appellant to mark their presence, but no appearance was made. Consequently, the opportunity for the appellant to pursue the appeal was closed, and the arguments on behalf of the department were heard.

Non-Payment of Service Tax and Retention of Security Deposit:
The appellant received construction services from M/s. S.S. Infratech but failed to make full payment against the invoice issued by the service provider. The appellant retained a security deposit of 5% of each demand/bill, which was not released after the completion of the work. As a result, an outstanding amount of Rs.15,00,831.81/- was found as on 31.03.2017. The appellant's failure to prove the non-release of the retained amount led to the conclusion that the amount was wrongly retained.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings that the appellant did not pay the service tax amount to the service provider within the stipulated time period. Due to the absence of the appellant and lack of evidence to support their case, the order under challenge was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

---