TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Audit conducted, by the Department, on the accounts of the appellants, revealed that the appellants are collecting Rs.474/-, from all the customers who purchased Bajaj products, under a Scheme known as "Lovely Service Club" subscription; on enquiry, the appellants informed that they are collecting the amount for providing guaranteed service and also for providing replacement of engine oil, a few parts and a gift. A show-cause notice, dated 07.01.2009, was issued to the appellants seeking demand of service tax of Rs.4,46,078/- along with interest and penalties. The appellants submitted that out of this Rs.474/-, Rs.200/- is charged for service and therefore, this amount alone is chargeable to service tax; the appellants accordingly paid ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SC). • Aditya College of Competitive Exams- 2009 (16) STR 154 (Tri.) • Omega Financial Service- 2011 (24) STR 590 (Tri.) • First Flight Courier Ltd.- 2011 (2) STR 622 (P&H). 3. Shri Narinder Singh, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, submits that the benefit of Notification No.12/2003 dated 28.06.2003, is available with the condition that there is documentary proof indicating the value of the said goods and materials. He relies on Ador Fontech Ltd.- 2014 (36) STR 146 (Tri. Mumbai) and submits that as the appellants have not submitted any documentary proof, exemption cannot be given. He submits that to claim the benefit, the value of the material should have been indicated in the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave intentionally choose not to disclose the amount collected by them with intent to evade payment of service tax; as held in Deccan Plaza Vs CST (Appeals)- 2016 (45) STR 202 (Madras), demand can be raised for the extended period for failure to make correct and full declaration in ST-3 Returns. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the appellants are not disputing either the levy or the classification of service tax. It is the case of the appellants that though they are collecting Rs.474/- from the customers for service of the vehicles under a Scheme, they are not liable to pay service tax on an amount of Rs.274/- because of the fact that out of this Rs.474/-, Rs.274/- does not pertain any service rendered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....condition that there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of the said goods and materials. The documentary proof could be in any form such as invoices, debit/ credit notes, books of accounts etc. We find that the appellants did not produce any evidence to that effect, either before the original adjudicating authority or before appellate authority or before us. 7. When the appellants avail the benefit of any notification, it shall be incumbent upon them to satisfy the conditions therein. As per the records of the case, we find that the appellants have not satisfied the conditions. Hence, we find that there is considerable force in the arguments put forth by the Authorized Representative. We find that Tribunal, in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tent they agreed upon, on their own and have not filed any Returns in this regard. We find that the contention of the appellant is not acceptable. The word "Suppression" means "to hide something"; by not filing the Returns and by not disclosing the material fact, the appellants have clearly suppressed the fact that they have collected the consideration from their customers for the services to be provided by them. Now the question arises as to whether such suppression was with an intent to evade payment of service tax. Suppression by itself may not indicate any intent. However, suppression coupled with the appellant's failure to disclose the amounts collected in the ST-3 returns; failure to deposit the applicable service tax, which they are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, in view of the clear unambiguous language used in Section 66A, it cannot be said that the appellant was not liable to declare the activities undertaken by the appellant in this regard. It is a fact on record that the appellant did not disclose this information in the ST-3 returns filed. The contention of the appellant that there was no specific column for declaration of the amounts paid lacks merits for the reason that the appellant has to declare the amounts received as the amounts billed or charged as the appellant is deemed as a service provider. Even otherwise, the appellant could have disclosed this information in the return with suitable remarks in this regard. Therefore, the non-disclosure of the details of the transaction in the....