2019 (3) TMI 115

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Pollachi and M/s. TNPL, Karur, for which they had obtained registration certificate from the department. However, it emerged that the appellants had not taken registration with reference to Sivagangai operations and had not discharged service tax liability on the services provided. In the statement dated 30.05.2008 and 11.05.2008, appellant informed that he was supplying workers on the basis of 'labour days'; that he distributed the wages to the labourers on fortnightly basis; that he got registered himself with the department on 29.07.2008 for Sivagangai operations and that he had pad up service tax to the tune of Rs. 33,75,747/- and interest of Rs. 4,24,443/- on 27/28.05.2008. Further a statement was filed by the appellant informing that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, as the tax liabilities had already been paid up by the appellant. She submits that the appeal filed against this order by the department was dismissed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.43431/2017 dated 22.12.2017, where it was noted that the tax dispute which was admitted by the appellant, even if it covers more than the normal period of limitation, cannot attract automatically a penal provision without a specific provision regarding existence of elements of fraud, mis-statement etc. 2.2 In respect of amount of Rs. 3,78,280/-, Ld. Advocate submits that the same is not sustainable since it relates to the expenses borne by the appellant which was subsequently reimbursed by M/s. Shakti Sugars,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vice tax demand of Rs. 45,06,956/-, an amount of Rs. 41,28,676/- service tax amount relating to Manpower Recruitment or Supply services was paid up by the appellant before issue of SCN and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,79,198/- was paid after issue of the adjudication order. This being so, we do not find any reason to diverge from the stand taken by this Bench in the earlier Final Order dated 22.12.2017. In the event, we hold that there will not be any penalty under Section 78 ibid in respect of Manpower Recruitment or Supply services by the appellant. 4.3 Coming to the demand of Rs. 3,78,280/-, Ld. Advocate submits that the same relates to reimbursable expenses which was reimbursed by M/s. Shakti Sugars. However, no proof has been put for....