TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 20.06.2012, except the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant has taken registration under 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service' on may 2007. Scrutiny of Balance Sheet and other records of the appellant by the Audit revealed that the Appellant has suppressed the value of Rs.22,77,358/- received during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10. Accordingly, it was alleged that the Appellant has not paid service tax of Rs.2,69,401/- on the taxable value of Rs.22,77,358. Accordingly, SCN dated 14.10.2011 was issued to the Appellant demanding service tax of Rs.2,69,401/-. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax along with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which provides that the Service tax would be paid by the Insurance Company and not the insurance agent. Relevant portion of the circular in verbatim is reproduced as under; "5.2 The service providers in this category includes insurance agents, insurance surveyors and loss adjusters, actuaries insurance consultants and insurance brokers. In the case of insurance surveyors and loss adjusters, actuaries and insurance consultants, the service is provided mainly to the insurance companies (insurer) while in the case of insurance agents, the service is provided to both the insurer and the policy holder. Service tax is liable to be paid by the insurance auxiliary service provider except in case of insurance agents. Insurance agents normal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... principal has been reimbursed. Accordingly, they contended that the demand of service tax confirmed on the reimbursed expenses as a pure agent is not sustainable. 3.4 Service tax has also been demanded on the TDS refund of Rs 2,17,292/- There is no provision under the service tax act to demand service tax on TDS refund. 3.5. In view of the above, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the demand and allowing their appeal. 4. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We observe that service tax of Rs.2,69,401/- has been demanded from the Appellant on the Appellant on the taxable value of Rs.22,77,358 received by them for the years 2006-07 to 2009-10. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est and penalty confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable as the SCN fails to specify the category of service under which the demand has been raised. 6.2. From the impugned order, we observe that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has demanded service tax under the following three categories: (i) Insurance commission received from Bajaj Alliance; (ii) Consumable items supplied and (iii) TDS refund 6.3. We observe that Service Tax of Rs 1,67,296/- has been confirmed in the impugned order on the Insurance commission received from Bajaj Alliance . The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand on the ground that the Appellant failed to substantiate that Bajaj Alliance for whom the Appellant has worked....