2016 (3) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1.2009 issued to the appellant alleges that the appellant was supplying manpower and receiving labour and service charges from the customer parties from financial year 2005-06 onwards without obtaining registration and without payment of service tax, thereby contravening provisions of Sections 68, 69, 70 of the Finance Act read with Rules 6 & 7 of Service Tax Rules 1994. Vide this show-cause notice the appellant was asked to pay service tax of Rs. 6,03,859/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine only) on Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service during the period of October 2005 to March 2008 under Sections 73(1) and 75 of Finance Act 1994 along with interest and penalties were also invoked under Sections 76, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y) on 19.02.2008 and 11.02.2008 respectively. iii. Inspite of payment of service tax and interest Department issued show-cause notice dated 22.01.2005 after a lapse of 9 months and 11 days. Issuance of show-cause notice is contrary to Board's Letter F. No. 137/167/2006 CX. 4 dated 03.10.2007. iv. The decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Bhoruka Aluminium Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mysore [2008 (11) S.T.R. 163 (Tri.-Bang.)] and Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2012 (25) S.T.R. 596 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] have held that Section 73(3) of Finance Act are to be applied and no show-cause notice to be issued. v. The appellant also relies on the following decisions of the Karnataka High Court: a) CCE & ST, LTU Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and did not pay service tax to the Department for two years (they paid service tax on 03.08.2010), after issuance of show-cause notice on 22.01.2009 prove that the appellant had intention to evade service tax. 4. All the facts on record and submissions of both sides have been carefully considered. It is found here that the appellant-assessee did not give full details of the services provided by them to their service recipients. The Departmental Officer in this case (Central Excise Range Officer) had to approach and make references to the service recipients namely M/s. Siddharth Industries, Belgaum of the appellant-assessee to get full details about the services given by the appellant-assessee, where they were liable to pay service tax. On....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....service tax. Therefore the appellant is not eligible to claim the benefit of provisions of Section 73(3) of Finance Act 1994. The case-laws quoted by the appellant-assessee do not support them as in all these cases the fact is that there was no intention to evade or suppression against the assessee. Whereas present facts on record prove that the appellant themselves did not give full details of liability of their service tax and the said details were collected by the Revenue from the customers of the appellant-assessee by the Central Excise Department, when the appellant-assessee did not give the said details themselves. Thus when there are malafides proved on the part of the appellant-assessee, they would not be entitled to take the benefi....