AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Mirzapur confirmed the demand of Rs. 74,675/-. In the order of adjudication dated 24 November 2011, the Assistant Commissioner observed that the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 74,675/- on 9 June 2011, 7 September 2011 and 21 September 2011 and consequently ordered appropriation of the amount against the total liability of the same amount. A penalty, each of Rs. 5000/-, was imposed under section 77 for violation of the provisions of sections 69 and 70. A penalty in the amount of Rs. 74,675/- was also imposed under section 78 which, it was directed, shall stand reduced to 25% of the service tax amount if the entire amount including the service tax, interest and penalties were paid within thirty days. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed on 30 March 2012. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the appellant on 12 March 2014 relying upon its decision earlier decision in M/s Neelav Jaiswal & brothers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad ST/2648/2012-CU(DB) decided on 22 July 2013. The following questions of law have been pressed at the hearing of the appeal : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o remit Provident Fund to Provident Fund Authorities is a statutory liability on the appellant, the employer of persons who were deployed to serve the needs of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., towards the taxable manpower recruitment or supply agency service. M/s Hindalco in consideration for such taxable service provided by the appellant had remitted to the appellant not only the amount agreed to between the parties for remunerating the personnel so deployed but also the amount of provident fund payable by the appellant to Provident Fund authorities, in terms of the appellant's statutory obligation. Both these amounts therefore constitute the gross amount charged by the appellant for the taxable service provided to M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., since the taxable service was provided for a consideration in money. Both these amounts therefore constitute the gross amount charged by the appellant for having provided the taxable service." Consequently, in this decision the Tribunal had come to the finding that the taxable value under section 67 in respect of a service provided by a manpower recruitment and supply agency would be the gross amount charged by the service provider for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or (b) collusion; or (c) wilful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax, the person, liable to pay such service tax or erroneous refund, as determined under sub-section (2) of section 73, shall also be liable to pay a penalty, in addition to such service tax and interest thereon, if any, payable by him, which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of service tax so not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded: Provided that where such service tax as determined under sub-section (2) of section 73, and the interest payable thereon under section 75, is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of order of the Central Excise Officer determining such service tax, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent of the service tax so determined : Provided further that the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available only if the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011 and 11 October 2011. This is a material circumstance which has a bearing on whether the appellant had an intent to evade the payment of service tax within the meaning of section 80. At the material time, the department had also taken due notice of the fact that there appeared to have been a mass unawareness among the service providers on whether the service tax was also liable to be deposited on the component of provident fund received from the recipient of the service to whom the manpower services were provided. This circumstance was actually borne in mind in an order dated 16 June 2011 of the Joint Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise, Allahabad, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-12 to the appeal. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had obtained registration, albeit on 11 July 2006, and the only dispute is as to whether service tax was liable to be paid on the component of provident fund received from the recipient of the service, we are of the view that the submission of the appellant that there was no fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention with an intent to evade the payment of tax, merits acceptance. In t....