TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the appellant had been collecting Service Tax from its customers since 2008, but had not deposited the same with the Government Exchequer. The officers resumed certain document relevant for further investigation, under Panchnama dated 03.12.2012 On the basis of investigations conducted, a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice for Rs. 4,90,58,667/- was issued vide F. No. DZU/INV/ST/J/246/012 dated 21.10.2013 for the period of FY 2008-09 to 2012-13. Further another Demand-cum-Show Cause Notices dated 24.4.2015 of Rs. 2,47,20,000/- was issued vide DL-II/ST/R/Dhillon/134/2013-14 for the period FY 2013-14 In all these show cause notices, it was proposed to recover the Service tax alleging that the Service Tax was collected but not deposited in respect of the services rendered by the appellant under the category of "Supply of Tangible Goods for Use". The notices also proposed to recover interest on the service tax demanded and to impose penalties under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.A total amount of Rs. 38,00,000/- already deposited by the appellant, was proposed to be appropriated. 3. It was alleged that the appellant was supplying the Aircraft/ helicopter belonging to/ owned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case they need not pay service tax. But when pointed out the appellant deposited Rs. 38,00,000/- towards payment of service tax collected from tax including interest. The learned Commissioner has appropriated the same as correct. The appellant has paid entire Service Tax from CENVAT Credit for which they maintained RG-23 Register except on the value of services rendered in J&K which is exempt under Section 64 of Finance Act, 1994. 4.3. That the Learned Commissioner has erred in taking or gross receipts from the balance sheets of the appellant, and treated the same as taxable turnover to calculate the Tax liability.. Further the Learned Commissioner has taken value for the year 2013-14 by applying Best Judgment method as prescribed under Section 72 of Finance Act, 1994. The actual value is much less than the value taken for calculating the tax liability. 4.4. That extended Period of Limitation is not invokable in the present matter. The Appellant has not suppressed any information with intent to evade payment of Tax. As per Section 73(1) of the Act, in a normal case SCN can be issued at any time within one year from the relevant date. Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act provides ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement dated 03.12.2012. Therefore, extended period is applicable even though the appellant has deposited the tax collected with interest. 5.2. That the details regarding service provided in J&K do not show that these originated and terminated in J&K in order to qualify for exemption from Service Tax under Section 64 of Finance Act, 1994. 5.3. That penalties have correctly been imposed. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We have also perused the case records. 6.1 From the perusal of the impugned order, in respect of service claimed to be provided in J&K, it was observed that the appellant has not submitted supporting documents like copy of invoice, tickets or passenger manifest to show that the flights originated and terminated in J&K to which Sh Hasija submitted that all these documents were provided to the department during investigation and the same can be submitted again now. Accordingly the appellant was directed to submit four sample invoice, tickets or passenger manifest for each year for the service provided in J& K to substantiate their claim, during next hearing. 6.2 Further hearing was held on 03.10.2018, when the appellant submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal book. 6.4 We further find that the Learned Commissioner while confirming the demand in respect of the service provided in J&K has held that the appellant has not been able provide the details, supported by documents whereas the said amounts were reflected in the Balance Sheets, perused by the department. The learned Commissioner has taken total receipts from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2014 for calculating the Service Tax. Service Tax on Supply of Tangible Goods Service came w.e.f 16.05.2008 therefore receipts before 16.5.2008 were not taxable. Further first Show Cause Notice was issued on 21.10.2013, thus the demand for the period from 16.05.2008 to 20.10.2013 is held beyond the extended period of limitation. Further, it is admitted in the impugned order that the appellant was registered with the Department vide Service Tax Registration No. AACCD1501GST001 for providing "Supply of Tangible Goods Services", therefore it cannot be alleged that the appellant had suppressed anything from the department. The appellant had maintained RG-23 Register and paid tax from CENVAT Credit which the Learned Commissioner has ignored and confirmed the demand on the entire receipts including the va....