TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of service tax with interest and penalty. 2. A show cause notice dated April 02, 20213 was issued to the appellant proposing a demand of Rs. 54,49,215/-. The period of dispute in the present appeal is from April 01, 2007 to March 31, 2012. It transpires from the show cause notice that the Department came to know that M/s BALCO, Korba had taken credit of the service tax paid and, therefore, investigation was initiated against the appellant to ascertain whether it had actually paid the service tax. It is on a perusal of the balance sheet of the appellant and the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant that the show cause notice alleges : "8.4 The Noticee have submitted copies of ST-3 returns for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12, Balan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) As per the copies of ST-3 return submitted, the Noticee have shown contract receipt (taxable value) amounting to Rs. 10,34,19,681/- during the period from April' 2007 to March' 2012. As there is difference in the amounts, hence the higher side amount received by Noticee on account of rendering of various services, is taken into consideration for determination of Service Tax liability for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12. 8.6 Accordingly, the taxable value and Service Tax liability is proposed to be determined under Section 72 ibid for the year 2007-08 to 2011-12. 8.7 Annexure-10 to this Show Cause Notice has been prepared showing the taxable value and Service Tax liabilities thereon. 8.8 Thus, the Noticee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed taxable service and the category of service. Learned counsel pointed out that the demand was proposed merely because there was a difference between the receipts in the profit & loss account of the appellant and the taxable value declared in the ST-3 returns without even identifying the service and the taxable category. Learned counsel also made submissions on merits and also contended that the extended period could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Shri Ravi Kapoor, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department, however, supported the impugned order. 6. To examine the contention advanced by the appellant, it is necessary to examine the show cause notice dated April 02, 2013. Parag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s received from outside India. 11. Neither is there any allegation in the two show cause notices nor any finding has been recorded in the impugned order to demonstrate how the provisions of 66 read with 66A of the Finance Act and the Import Rules are attracted. In fact, neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order specify the category of service under which the demand has been confirmed against the Appellant. The demand has been proposed and confirmed merely because of difference between the figures in the balance sheet of the Appellant and the ST-3 Returns." [emphasis supplied] 8. After placing reliance upon the decisions of the Tribunal in Shubham Electricals vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak 201....