2023 (6) TMI 1243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant was absent on 4th May, 2023. As per office report, notice sent to appellant on 11.05.2023 had been delivered on 15th May, 2023. Whereas the notice sent to the Advocate has been returned back with the remark - "addressee absent - intimation served". Thus, it appears that the notices have been served twice but the appellant has failed to take steps for effective appearance.  Further, there is no application requesting for adjournment. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing with the assistance of ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue.   2.  The brief facts are that the appellant is an individual engaged in providing  works contract service  and is also providing services to insurance company as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Co. Ltd., Morena. Calculation sheet of Service tax was also submitted giving  the calculation of service tax liability as follows:- 5.  It was also urged that the receipts from LIC of India for providing services is not taxable  in the hands of the appellant, as tax is payable by the service recipient. The appellant also produced copies of work orders, invoices, etc. However, the Adjudicating Authority by observing that there is no signature/certification on the calculation sheet,  did not consider the same nor allowed the benefit of abatement for works contract and confirmed the proposed service tax liability of Rs.1,13,534/- along with interest and further imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p; Sl. No. Name of client Service tax 1. AO, Morena 8,623 2. MPMKVV 97,164 Total Service tax payable 1,05,787 Service tax paid as per ST-3 returns 72,761 Balance service tax to be paid 33,026 8.  Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the demand of Rs.80,508/- and upholding the demand of Rs.33,026/-. Further, proportionate  penalty of Rs.33,026/- was confirmed under Section 78 of the Act and further penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77 was upheld.  9.  Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the benefit abatement under Notification no.24/2012-ST has been arbitrarily&nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of penalty. I find that such rejection of calculation of service tax and the ST3 Return filed  by the appellant  is bad in law, without finding  any fault or error in the same. The ST-3 Returns  submitted by an assessee is binding on the Department, unless the Department  finds material faults or errors in the same. Further, issue of show cause notice on the apparent difference in the gross turnover as per balance sheet or ST-3 Return, as compared with Form 26 AS have been deprecated  by this Tribunal in several matters. Form 26 AS is not the prescribed document in the scheme of Service Tax Assessment and the same cannot be adopted blindly without any attempt to reconcile the difference. On perusal of the ca....