2021 (9) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ows: 2. That the appellants are registered under the category of legal consultancy service, work contract service, manpower recruitment/ supply agency service, maintenance or repair service and security/ detective agency service. During the scrutiny of ST-3 Returns of the appellant by AG (Audit), the Department noticed that the appellant had received services of manpower recruitment or supply agency during the period of April, 2015 to March, 2016 and had paid Service Tax under manpower recruitment or supply agency service on 75% of gross service value under reverse charge mechanism as per the provisions of Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20th June, 2012. It was observed that the appellant was otherwise liable to pay Service Tax on 100% ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rities below are alleged to have wrongly held suppression of facts on part of the appellant. It is submitted that otherwise also the Service Tax on balance 25% amount of service value stands already paid by the service provider. Hence present is not at all a case of short payment of Service Tax. The demand has wrongly been confirmed. The provisions imposing penalty have wrongly been invoked. Order is accordingly liable to be set aside. In addition, it is submitted that appellant is an education Institute as contrary to a business entity and the Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20th June, 2012 exempts the appellant from the liability. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the opinion that non-payment by the appellant for the said period is merely due to his bonafide belief of his liability to the extent of paying the service tax at 75% of the service value. Once there is no apparent malafide on part of the appellant and in view of the aforesaid bonafide belief of the appellant, fastening the allegations as that of concealment fraud and suppression are held to be highly unjustified. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1995 (78) ELT 401 (S.C.) has held that word and phrase as that of "suppression of facts" as used in proviso to section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 are to be interpreted strictly because of its use ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has received 100% tax amount on the impugned transaction. Confirming such liability again under the pretext of the amendment of the applicable Notification will be nothing but will amount to receiving tax twice for the same transaction. Without going into the other merits of the status of appellant as to whether it is a business entity or a body Corporate or a charitable trust, the above discussion makes it clear that the appellants liabilities stands already discharged. The demand should not have been confirmed. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 7.4 has acknowledged that the Journal Vouchers, cash memo bill, salary details of housekeeping having reference of the amount of Rs. 63,072/- against service tax were very much available. The demand c....