TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ebruary 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 to 31.03.2010 alleging the non-declaration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tegorized 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. III - IRREGULAR AVAILEMENT OF CREDIT. * That they were unable to locate the documents pertaining to the period 2004 onwards which fact was submitted at the time of audit; * they were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 supporting documents while passing order on stay petition. The appellant was happy with the order but never bothered to support its case with the help of any documents. In the absence of the vital documents, we find it difficult to even appreciate the strong contentions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 given a thread-bear analysis based on the best of his judgment due to the non-co-operation of the appellant. For these very factual position and reasons, we are of the considered opinion that even the case laws relied on by the appellant would not help. When no documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 therefore dismiss this ground of appeal and accordingly, this ground is also dismissed. 6.1 We shall take up the next issue of wrong availment of Cenvat Credits of Rs. 9,20,740/- comprising of three instances. It is an admitted fact even by the appellant, that the supporting docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount 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 reasonable opportunities to the appellant. Security charges is also disallowed, not as canvassed by the appellant for the reason of not used in rendering output services, but as could be seen from the table at paragraph 16 of the impugned order, for non-production of documents. The ....