2024 (7) TMI 13 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Service Tax Demand Due to Lack of Documentation for Exemption Claim Under Mega Notification No. 25/2012.

M/s. Ronit Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur

M/s. Ronit Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur - TMI Issues involved:1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on income shown in income tax returns.2. Whether the appellant qualifies for exemption under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012.3. Whether the appellant is entitled to Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption.4. Whether the demand for service tax is barred by limitation.5. Whether penalties imposed are justified.Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant, a service tax registration holder, was informed by the Revenue Department about income shown in income tax returns, leading to a demand for service tax. The original adjudicating authority dropped the demand on a portion of the income but confirmed service tax on the remaining amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back due to new information about vehicles being given on hire, covered under Mega Exemption Notification. The original authority, upon remand, found the appellant had not provided sufficient documents, leading to confirmation of service tax demand. The subsequent appeal was rejected, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal.2. The appellant argued that the service provided through hiring transport vehicles is exempt under Mega Notification No. 25/2012. They claimed to have produced invoices and bilties as evidence, qualifying for the exemption. Additionally, they asserted eligibility for SSI exemption and tax benefits, while contending that the demand was time-barred. The appellant cited a precedent to support their case.3. The department countered, stating that the appellant did not respond to the show cause notice initially, leading to an ex parte order. Despite remand, the appellant allegedly failed to provide the necessary documents, with the department finding the evidence insufficient to support the appellant's claims. The department argued that the new plea regarding vehicles hired out lacked adequate documentation and was not sustainable. They sought dismissal of the appeal.4. The Tribunal observed that while a portion of the demand was dropped, the remaining amount lacked supporting documents from the appellant, especially concerning the hire of vehicles. Only six bilties were produced, which raised discrepancies and were insufficient to verify the claims made by the appellant. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, concluding that the appellant failed to provide necessary documents for the Mega Notification exemption claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the service tax demand.5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of adequate documentation from the appellant to substantiate their claim for exemption under Mega Notification No. 25/2012, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the service tax demand.