TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of reverse charge mechanism on the ground that the appellant paid brokerage / commission to foreign broker / commission agent from 2002 to 2005-06 and Indian agents/ brokers during the period 17.01.2001 to 31.03.2005 but did not paid service tax thereon. (ii) Rs. 48,20,574/- on the ground that this was the amount payable on the difference in the value of taxable service as shown in the following table. Year As per worksheet submitted to Hqrs. (value of taxable service) Rs. As per worksheet prepared division-wise (value of taxable service) Rs. Difference in value of taxable service on which service tax not paid Rs. Difference in service tax payable and paid Rs. 2002-03 1815415240/- 1911826717/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... team of said short payment due to reconciliation problem and thus there was no malafide intention to evade payment of service tax. It is a public sector undertaking and so the impugned demand is time barred as there was no wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. The appellant cited the judgment in its own case - 2006 (3) STR 587 (Tri. Del.) in terms of which it was held that 'the excess payment of service tax is to be adjusted while computing the demand for short payment of service tax'. It also cited the judgment in the case of BSNL vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2009 (14) STR 359 (Tri. Ahmd.) to assert that malafide intention to evade duty cannot be attributed to public sector undertaking owned by Government of India. (iv) The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom them for finalising deals with reinsurers. Such agents would not come in the category of insurance agents defined in Section 65(54) of the Finance Act, 1994 in terms of which the insurance agent is defined as under: "Insurance agent" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (10) of Section 2 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) As per section 2(10) of the Insurance Act, 1938 "insurance agent" means an insurance agent licensed under section 42 who receives or agrees to receive payment by way of commission or other remuneration in consideration of his soliciting or procuring insurance business including business relating to the continuance, renewal or retrieval of policies of insurance". It is evident that the agent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble from 18.04.2006 (refer Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian National Shipowners Associations -2010 (17) STR J57 (SC)] while period involved here is prior thereto. In the light of the foregoing analysis we find that this component of demand is not sustainable. 7. Coming to the demand of Rs. 48,20,574/- arising on account of the reconciliation of figures for the year 2002-03 it is seen that the said demand for the period 2002-03 for which provisional assessment was finalised vide order dated 11.05.2005. It was only later when the appellant further reconciled the figures, that it noticed the discrepancy as contained in the table reproduced earlier and it was the appellant only who informed Revenue about it. In para 5.2 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort-levied or short-paid by reasons of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made there-under with intent to evade payment of service tax, the Central Excise Officer may, within a period of 5 years from the relevant date serve notice on the person chargeable with the service tax, which has not been levied or paid. As the fact regarding payment of brokerage/ commission paid to foreign brokers/ commission agents and Indian agents/ brokers and the correct value of taxable service in respect of service provided by their Bangalore Division, was suppressed from the department with an intent to evade payment of service tax, the extended period of five....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said judgment to allow adjustment of duty short paid out of the duty paid in excess, the fact remains that this judgment has been passed in the appellant's own case and based on that judgment the appellant has pleaded that it should be allowed to adjust the said short payment of Rs. 48,20,754/- out of the excess service tax paid during the period 2004-05. We are not entirely in agreement with the CESTAT observation quoted above but we also not relying upon the said judgment in this case. The very fact that such a pleading has been made and the amount has actually been paid in excess in 2004-05 shows the bonafies of the appellant. In these circumstances, we are unable to discern any evidence which would even suggest that there was any wi....