TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,18,21,995/- against the appellant under Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 ( for short 'Finance Act') read with proviso 2 sub Section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act. The interest was also imposed under the provision of Section 75 of the Finance Act, along the penalty under provision of Section 76 and 77 of the Act. An amount of Rs. 5 lakh deposited by the appellant during the investigation was also appropriated. Penalty under Section 77 (1)(a) of the Finance Act and 77(2) of the Finance Acts were also imposed upon the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are holder of Service Tax, Registration No. AAABB023DST00 under Finance Act. A Show Cause Notice was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Service Tax Determination of the Value Rules, 2006, the concept of valuation has been changed as the service tax is to be paid on the gross value received including expenses incurred on behalf of the receiver of the service. In terms of the section 67(1) of Finance Act, where the service tax is charged on the taxable value with reference to its value, the gross amount charged by the service provided for such service provider or to be provided shall be value on which service tax is leviable. It was alleged that the appellant have short paid the service tax including secondary and higher secondary cess during the Financial Year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11. The impugned Show Cause Notice was adjudicated which culminated into t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax thereon as applicable. Ld. Advocate also submitted that the declaration issued by the main contractor to that effect before the Adjudicating Authority. 5. Ld. Advocate further relied upon the following decisions; (i) Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras[1994 (74) ELT 9(SC) (ii) Collector of Central Excise vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) ELT 276(SC) (iii) Padmini Products vs Collector of C. EX. [1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC)] (iv) Sainik Security Service vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Allahabad. [2016(41) STR 159 (Tri-All) (v) Continental Foundation JT. Venture vs Commr. Of C. Ex. Chandigarh- I[2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)] (vi) Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also argued that Ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand in arbitrary manner without considering submissions made by the appellant. 7. Ld. AR on the other hand justified the impugned order stating that the appellant has not paid service tax on the gross amount received by them on services rendered as the same was required to be paid. 8. We have gone through the fact of the case and perused the appeal records. We have also heard Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue. 9. We find that in this case the issue is regarding including all expenses such as wage/salary, tiffin, allowance, night allowance, days allowance, bonus , gratuity, contribution to the provident fund etc., for the purpo....