2023 (3) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Service Tax Provisions, filing their returns regularly and maintaining proper books of accounts. The appellant was rendering service during the period 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 (June, 2017) mainly under the Head "Works Contract Service' "Erection Commissioning Service", "Maintenance Management" and "Manpower Recruitment Service". The Revenue received some data from the Income Tax Department for the period 2013-2014 to 2017 to 2018 (June, 2017). It appeared to Revenue that there is some suppression of turnover and/or mis-classification of taxable service. The Revenue commenced inquiry through its headquarters (Preventive) asking for certain documents relating to assessment of service tax. In response, the appellant provided copies of thei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....798,673 17,49,443 49,230 Total 1,09,10,404 94,30,230 13,86,756.00 6.  The said differential amount was paid by the appellant during the adjudication proceedings as follows:- (Amount paid in Rs.) (payment made on) Rs. 5,00,000/- 22.07.2020 Rs. 2,86,756/- 04.08.2020 Rs. 6,00,000/- 06.08.2020 Total Rs.13,86,756/-   7. Considering the contentions of the appellant, ld. Commissioner confirmed a truncated amount of Rs.16,49,733/-(Rs.13,86,756/- already admitted plus Rs.2,52,977/- ) due to difference in abatement claim, as the service was provided to individual, and also not allowing cum tax benefit. Further, ld. Commissioner appropriated the amount already deposited Rs.13,86,756/-. Fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the appellant. Such Group Insurance is essential as in the nature of services provided, there is always possibility of any worker getting injured or killed. Accordingly, prays for allowing their appeal with consequential benefits. 9. Ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue relies on the impugned order. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that it is evident on the face of the impugned order, that no case of suppression or fraud, or misrepresentation is found on the part of the appellant/assessee. In this view of the matter, I set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act and also under Section 77(1)(c) of the Act. I further hold that the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of Rs.1,25,018/-, which is t....