TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 486
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax amount to the appellant. Later the appellant remitted the service tax amount of Rs.16,57,515/- and interest of Rs.4,75,915/- in May 2009. Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dt. 24.9.2010 covering both the periods i.e. the period for which the appellant was not registered and not paying tax in time as also for the period for which the appellant was registered and was paying service tax regularly. On adjudication, a demand of Rs.17,27,766/- was confirmed against the appellant along with interest under section 75. Further, an amount of Rs.16,57,515/-paid as tax and Rs.4,75,915/- paid as interest were appropriated against the said demand. Further a penalty of Rs.17,27,766/- was imposed under section 78 and Rs.5000/- under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the order, the appellants have filed this appeal. 2. The first submission of the advocate for the appellant is that there is no tax liability over and above the amount of Rs.16,57,515/-. He explains that the difference between the confirmed demand of Rs.17,27,766/- and paid amount of Rs.16,57,515/- arises on account of the fact that Revenue has confirmed demand based on figures mentioned in the Income Tax return ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication report in respect of Appeal filed Shri J.I. Jesudasan as reported by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is furnished hereunder A. The assessee J.I. Jesudasan had submitted their bank statement for the months of April & May 2009 from which it could not be established that the 9 bills raised by the assessee have been paid during the months of April 2009 during which period the assessee has discharged the service tax liability. An amount to the tune of Rs.5,76,007/- had been credited to the assessees' account on2-5-2009 which is claimed by the assessee as payment by the Service receiver M/s. TAFE in respect of the 9 bills raised on31-3-2009. B. From the bank statement, it could not be established that the bills have been paid in April-2009. The credit entries in the Bank statement on 2-6-2009 might relate to any other subsequent bills which raised during 2009-2010. It is also seen from the TDS certificate Bill No.13 dated 31-3-2009 raised by the assessee have been paid on 31-3-2009 itself by the service receiver. Hence, the ST in respect of the said bill is to be paid during the period 2008-09 only. C. It is further reported that, the counsel was addressed to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his case made out by Revenue for the differential tax demand forRs.70,251/- is. 7. The Ld. AR further makes the following submissions:- (i) He submits that these facts were not raised during adjudication proceedings or during proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals). He further submits that these details were not submitted even along with appeal papers. (ii) He further reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority, Commissioner (Appeals), verification report as given by the Joint Commissioner in the matter of tax liability. (iii) He further submits that prayer of the appellant for waiver of penalty cannot be accepted because they have suppressed the fact of rendering services and even after commencement of the investigation they have not paid. They have not taken out registration. They have not come with clean hands. They have not furnished true details of amount received towards services rendered. (iv) Therefore, Ld. AR submits that extended period of time for the demand is sustainable and penalty under section 78 is payable. He relies on the following decisions :- 1. CCE, MUMBAI Vs Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (270) ELT 643 (SC) 2. Mathania Fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation report is written in a manner to avoid taking any responsibility for verification and to burden this small assessee with more and more visits to excise office for satisfying the excise officers. 13. The demand by Revenue is based on Income Tax return filed by the appellant which is prepared on the basis of accrual of income. The position that during the relevant period service tax liability was based on receipt of consideration for service is an accepted legal position. So the demand is basically based on a doubt rather than any evidence. When explanations for clearing the doubts were given Revenue took a stand that there was a burden on the appellant to reconcile the difference in value of service to the extent of Rs.626525/-which was not discharged. The appellant has demonstrated the reconciliation before the Tribunal by showing Bank Statement and entries dated 04-05-2008 and 03-06-2009. In the normal course the Tribunal does not accept such evidence at appeal stage. But considering the small amount involved and the fact that the appellant is an individual, this Bench wanted to get the matter finally resolved by getting the claim verified through the jurisdictional offi....