Reverse charge service tax liability sustained where admitted and unrebutted claims for security, manpower, GTA and legal services remained unchallenged.

Service tax liability under reverse charge was upheld for security agency services, directors' commission treated as salary without documentary support, manpower supply services, GTA services and legal consultancy services, because the replies and record supported confirmation of the demands. The challenge to the confirmed demand also failed as no material was produced to displace the findings in the adjudication and appellate orders, and the appellant did not adduce documentary evidence to rebut liability. The order confirming the service tax demands was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether service tax was payable by the service recipient under reverse charge on security agency services, commission paid to directors, manpower supply services, GTA services and legal consultancy services; (ii) whether the demand confirmed in the orders below was liable to be interfered with for want of supporting evidence.

Issue (i): whether service tax was payable by the service recipient under reverse charge on security agency services, commission paid to directors, manpower supply services, GTA services and legal consultancy services.

Analysis: The replies filed before adjudication were taken into account. Liability towards security agency service was admitted. The claim that amounts paid to directors were salary was not supported by any document. The demands relating to manpower supply, GTA and legal consultancy services were examined with reference to the replies and the record, and the liability was confirmed under the reverse charge arrangement applied in the case.

Conclusion: The service tax demands on the disputed services were correctly confirmed against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the demand confirmed in the orders below was liable to be interfered with for want of supporting evidence.

Analysis: No material was produced to dislodge the findings recorded in the adjudication and appellate orders. The appellant remained absent during hearing and did not place any documentary basis to rebut the conclusions on liability.

Conclusion: No ground for interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The order confirming the service tax demands was sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A confirmed tax demand under reverse charge will not be disturbed where the assessee's liability is admitted or remains unrebutted and no documentary evidence is produced to contradict the findings below.

---