TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y commission for the period April 2008 to February 2009 from its group Companies for marketing of products, which is taxable under Business Auxiliary Service. The next allegation was that there was substantial difference between the taxable value declared in the ST-3 return and the service income shown in the profit & loss Account. The next allegation is that the appellant did not produce any documents based on which they had taken cenvat credit for the period October 2004 to March 2008 which was contrary to Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; thus alleging suppression of facts proposed to demand service tax on the above along with applicable interest and penalty. The second SCN No.21/2010 dated 16.07.2010 issued for the period 01.03 2009 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....three units of HCL Peripherals; • The income reflected total income of all the three units with labour charges at all the divisions categorized under service income in its books and hence the service income cannot be attributed to the appellant alone; • It is thus not tenable to classify income of the company to be that of one particular unit; • That the demand raised on the basis of figures in books of account are not sustainable, in view of the decision in CCE Vs. TRF Limited, 2009(13) STR 557 (Tri-Kol); • That the financials contain figures on actual basis whereas service tax is paid on receipt basis, the entire amount shown as income of its unit was not actually received, etc. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rieved, the assessee has filed these appeals before this forum. 3. We have heard Shri M. Karthikeyan, Ld Advocate for the appellant and Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC, Ld. DR for the Revenue, we have gone through the impugned order as also the documents referred to during the course of arguments and also carefully gone through the orders relied on during the hearing. We take up the issue of difference in ST-3 return and P&L A/c first. Our observation, at the outset, is that the appellant while taking us through the explanations filed before the Adj authority, did not bother to file the enclosures which, according to it, are the supporting documents. We fail to understand this. This assumes importance when this court observed about the su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded the payment of labour charges, that it was showing only income even though the same was not received during the year as it was following accrual system, etc. but it is even surprising to note that the appellant has tested the Commissioner also, by not bothering to produce any documents. The findings by the commissioner at paragraph 14.2 & 14.5 are very evident and the same has remained unchallenged. The basic documents like the balance sheet of each unit for reconciliation were not furnished despite reminders, nor even invoice copies, contracts, break up of income earned unit wise. The approach of the appellant is clearly very callous. 4.2 For the above reasons, we are compelled to accept the findings of Ld. Commissioner who has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, then the discount which is normally given to the buyer/end user, but the same is enjoyed by an intermediary/appellant. Books reflect it as agency commission but the appellant claims it, contrary to that, as discount. The same has been offered and has accordingly suffered income tax. In the absence of explicit supporting documents, even we find it difficult to dethrone the findings of Ld. Commissioner. 5.2 Case laws relied on by the appellant are not applicable to the facts on hand since, firstly, there were some arrangements/agreements in those cases which, as contended by the appellant, are not here in this case. The appellant has never claimed that it was a wholesale dealer of the supplier, unlike in some cases. We have to therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 6,00,104/- and we find analysis at great length by the commissioner after which the disallowance was made to the extent of Rs. 3,20,636/-. Ld. Advocate contends before us that the services of Air travel agency was used in order to book tickets for its employees and that the amount was not recovered from them. Apparently, no such plea is forthcoming from the impugned order, rather the commissioner observes that the disallowance was resorted to for non-production of supporting documents. The plea is also not found nor the documents in support and hence, the adjudicating authority had no benefit of the plea while adjudication. Hence, we are remitting this issue to the file of adjudicating authority to pass de-novo order after affording r....