TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of service and they were paying service tax on remaining 25%. It was alleged that benefit of Notification was subject to documentary proof indicating the value of said goods and material sold. However, during the period August 2004 to March 2006, though the respondents availed the exemption, they did not show any proof. It was also alleged that the respondents availed CENVAT credit in excess of 20% of the tax payable in contravention of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A show case notice demanding Service Tax of Rs. 9,36,165/- + Education Cess Rs. 1,873/- and CENVAT credit of Rs. 84,208/-. While seeking to impose fine and penalty, the show-cause notice was issued by Additional Commissioner of Service Tax and on an appeal filed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rial sold by the service provider to the recipient. If abatement needs to be on actual value with documentary proof and not on notional and arbitrary ratio. iv. Notification does not mandate any CA certificate. CA certificate does not specify verification of individual bills issued by the service provider. v. The Commissioner (Appeal) could have remanded the case for actual verification by lower authorities. 4. The Departmental representatives reiterated the grounds of appeal. 5. Perused the records of the case. Brief issue for consideration in this case is as to whether the respondents are required to indicate the cost of goods and material supplied in the course of rendering a service specifically in the invoices. We find that the Not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting the decisions of this Bench. The sum and substance discussed in that decision was whether there was any requirement to indicate specifically such cost/value in the invoices/bills. The only requirement in terms of the Notification is to provide documentary evidence proof indicating the value of said goods and materials. In the instant case, the allegation is that the respondents have not shown any documentary proof to indicate the value of goods and articles used in the discharge of said service to their customers. The respondents adopted a notional ratio of 75:25 of goods and value of service. The said CA certificate only certified the ratio without mentioning as to any verification was conducted of the documents which indicate such v....