TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the course of auditing of the records of appellants, the audit party raised the objection that, they are required to pay the Service Tax of Rs. 2,14,654/-/- under reverse change mechanism under the category of Manpower Supply Agency Service on the charges paid to the manpower supply agencies during the period from July 2012 to September 2013. On being pointed out by the audit, the appellant paid the Service Tax of Rs. 2,14,654/- vide challan dated 03.04.2014. Subsequently, a SCN dated 08.02.2016 demanding Service Tax along with interest and penalties was issued to the appellant and after the receipt of SCN, the appellant also paid interest of Rs. 52,883/- vide challan dated 31.03.2016. Thereafter, following the due process, the Assistant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned them the taxability of the said charges, they have paid the Service Tax immediately. He further submitted that manpower supply service is specifically covered in the definition of input service and is related to their manufacturing activity and therefore the credit of the same was immediately available to the appellants, if the same would have been paid by them on due dates under reverse charge mechanism and hence the transaction was revenue neutral. He further submitted that when the present transaction is revenue neutral, there is no malafide intention which can be inferred and extended period cannot be invoked. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) Nirlon Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2015 (320) ELT 22 (SC). (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere entirely different and the tax liability in those cases has arisen on account of clandestine clearances. He further submitted that no penalty can be imposed if the transaction is revenue neutral. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2018 (9) TMI-1497. (ii) Marvelous Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2018 (4) TMI-1462. (iii) Jain Irrigation Vs. CCE, 2015 (40) STR-752. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I find that the appellant paid the Service Tax vide challan dated 03.04.20....