AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that the assessee-Appellants are registered in respect of only one office at Gurgaon and is not disclosing about another office at Bhiwadi. So, search at both the premises was conducted on 19.02.2010 in the presence of independent witnesses. Certain documents, computers, CDs and laptop were seized. Finally, a show cause notice was issued demanding the Service Tax of Rs. 4,41,52,189/- along with penalty and interest. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,20,98,599/- by giving the relief of the balance amount. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed the present appeals. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri Sudhir Malhotra, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants and Shri Sanjay Jain, learned DR for the Department. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants submits that they have received the compensation for the services provided through the bank from different corporates and such figure is invariably reflected in the bank statement and the balance sheet, and consequently the findings of the Commissioner that assessee-Appellants was rendering the services clandestinely is not sustainable. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Import), Nahava Sheva, 2015 (323) ELT 377 (Tri.-Mum); (iv) CCE, Nagpur Vs Ballarpur Indus. Ltd., 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC); and (v) Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST, New Delhi, 2016 (45) STR 549 (Tri.-Del) 5. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Jain, learned DR for the Revenue, submits that the investigations resulted in disclosure of a secret office which was not registered with the Department. On examination, it was found that the assessee-Appellants were maintaining parallel/duplicate invoices, as mentioned in the show cause notice. Presence of parallel/duplicate invoices itself shows that the assessee/Appellants have received the payment in cash and not accounted for. By its very nature of transaction, it is clear that the same is not reflected in the books of accounts. They had provided unaccounted services and issued parallel/duplicate invoices, payments for which could not have been shown in the books of account. It could be in cash or other undisclosed form. Further, the learned DR submits that the assessee-Appellants could not submit any evidence to prove provision of such services in the State of J&K or in the SEZ, hence they are liable to pay Service Tax. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t did not carry any incriminating data. The CDs were also scrutinized and it was found that the only relevant data contained in them were the files of invoices which were duly taken printouts of. Again, the same also carried similarly numbered invoices." In view of the above, we find no justification to demand the Service Tax on the basis of so called parallel/duplicate invoices and the same is hereby set aside. 8. About the unregistered office, it appears that the assessee-Appellants were registered in the name of M/s Varsed Detective and Security Pvt. Ltd. at Gurgaon and opened another office in Bhiwadi in the name of M/s Varsed Services, which is a component of the main company. M/s Varsed Services was doing the business activity in the name of the main company with the same registration number. So, there is no scope for escapism. From the record, it appears that M/s Varsed Services has not received any payment or order. Whatever orders or payments were received are accounted in the main company. Hence, the second company may be slightly different in nomenclature but can be considered as a branch unit, especially when no business was carried out in its name. Further, it ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Archaeological Survey of India. In the instant case, it appears that the Commissioner has made addition to Service Tax demand on the basis of parallel/duplicate invoices which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As stated above, the income was taken on accrued basis, but not on the actual basis. 12. Regarding the SEZ services, it appears that for SEZ units, namely, DLF Kolkata; DLF IT Park, Hyderabad and DLF Rai Project, the assessee-Appellants have raised the invoices but when tax was not received the same was not paid. There is nothing on record to show that the assessee-Appellants received the Service Tax raised in the invoices. It may be mentioned that no Service Tax was charged during the period 2008 to 2010. The demand of Service Tax of Rs. 5,74,624/- in this regard is bad in law and the same is hereby set aside. 13. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. A. No.ST/2678/2012 14. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, it may be mentioned that the issue of SEZ was raised. There is no dispute regarding the fact that services were rendered to units in SEZ. It may be mentioned that the charge in the Departmental appeal is that the servi....