TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s held the following :- (i) For the period prior to 16-10-1998, no service tax was leviable on service rendered by the Architects. The appellants are Architects and no qualified engineers. They may be rendering services which a consulting engineer does. But that does not mean that they become consulting engineers. Thus no service tax as consulting engineers is leviable on them prior to 16-10-1998. (ii) The following amounts are liable to be deducted for calculating the service tax liability. (a) An amount of Rs. 99,08,228/- for the services rendered prior to 16-10-1998. (b) Rs. 9,73,471/- deduction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties had attached all the dues to be received from the clients. (c) When tax return is filed, admitting tax liability, option was open to the authorities to enforce dues in the normal channel. No show cause notice was required to be issued and consequently no penalty could be imposed. (d) The charge of failure to take registration under the heading consulting engineer and therefore there was suppression is not sustainable as the appellants were not covered under the heading consulting engineer as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) himself. (e) In the circumstances no allegation of suppression with an intention to evade tax warranting invokin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsulting Engineers is leviable on them during the period as they are architects and relying on Trade Notice No. 1/98 dated 5-1-98 of CCE, Delhi in this regard. But Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone through the Trade Notice in full. Para 6 of Trade Notice clarifies the situation when both Engineering services and Architectural services are involved which is the case here. Para 6 of the trade notice says that "It is quite possible that many a time an Engineering services and Architectural services and a lumpsum amount is charged for both the services. In such cases service tax will have to be collected on the entire amount charged. However, if separate break up is given in the bill for engineering services and architectural services, then ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be excluded. (iii) The deductions allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of charges received, i.e., Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 1,53,600/-, Rs. 1,77,000/- respectively from M/s. Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences (MIMS), M/s Lakeshore Hospital and M/s M. Far Hospital are not correct for the reasons stated below. (a) Extracts of Ledger showing the details of payment made to the assessee on account of professional charges obtained from M/s. MIMS show that during the period 7-7-98 to 31-11-98 an amount of Rs. 52,12,500/- was received by the assessee but they have accounted only an amount of Rs. 46,17,700/- thereby suppressing Rs. 5,94,800/-. This aspect is made clear in para ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act 1994 to Rs. 8 lakhs. In this regard, it may be mentioned that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 stipulates it as a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice the amount of service tax sought to be evaded. In the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has worked out the service tax liability of the appellant as Rs. 12,60,795/-. As such the minimum penalty imposable under Section 78 on the appellant should be equal to the tax evaded and not Rs. 8 lakhs as reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has given a ....