TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seded vide Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 is liable to be denied to the party. Accordingly, I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 2,03,45,896/- [Rupees Two Crores Three Lakhs Forty Five Thousands Eight Hundred Ninety Six only] (incl. Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess) under the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and order for its recovery under the provisions of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 appropriating Service Tax of Rs. 4,31,035/- already deposited by the party. (ii) I confirm the liability of interest at the appropriate rates on the aforesaid short paid Service Tax of amount of Rs. 2,03,45,896/- and order for its recovery under the provisions of the Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 appropriating interest of Rs. 12,712/- already paid by the party. (iii) I impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the party under the provisions of Section 77(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the reasons as discussed hereinabove. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the party under the provisions of Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the reasons as discussed hereinabove. (v) I impose p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking extended period of limitation. And Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 4,31,035/- deposited by the party vide challans dated 01.10.2014 and 08.10.2014 should not be appropriated against the demand of Service Tax confirmed; (b) Interest at the applicable rate should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 appropriating amount of interest to the tune of Rs. 12,712/- as deposited by the party vide challans dated 08.10.2014, against the demand of interest confirmed; (c) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(b), 77(1)(c), 77(1)(d), 77(1)(e) and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the reasons as discussed above; (d) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for suppressing the correct value of taxable services provided by them from the department, and contravening the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, with intent to evade payment of Service Tax." 2.3 The show cause notice has been adjudicated as per the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal. 3.1 We have heard Shri Amit Awasthi & Shri Raj Shukla, Advocate appearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hallans 26. In continuation to previous reply dated 20.11.2014, Smt. Shveta Bajpai, Proprietor of M/s Arrow Commercial Services vide their another letter dated NIL (received on 10.06.2015) further submitted that :- ➢ Regarding the year 2009-10 to 2012-13 all required documents and details were submitted by them vide their letter dated 26.09.2014. ➢ In reply to Para 4 of the impugned SCN, they have submitted copies of challans which were remaining to pay; ➢ Mr. Amit Solomon, Manager of applicant firm appeared before Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise Kanpur on 20.10.2014 and tendered his statement before the authority in respect of their. questions. They do agree with the said statement of Shri Amit Solomon. RECORD OF PERSONAL HEARING 27. Shri R.K. Yadav, Advocate appeared for Personal Hearing on behalf of the party on 26.05.2015 and reiterated the written reply already made by the party. He had nothing else to state. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS: 28. I have carefully examined the case records, the documents relied upon and the party's written replies as well as oral submissions made by the advocate of the party at the time of personal heari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evant to the period from April, 2009 to March, 2014 against provision of taxable service of "Cleaning Activity" have claimed deduction of "Consumable Stores" [i.e. cost of material consumed] under Notification No 12/2003-ST from the gross receipt against provision of taxable services; that the party also considered the salary paid by them to their staff as the payment to third party as provided under Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and claimed further deduction of Salary paid to their staff from the gross receipt against provision of taxable services. Whereas, it appeared that no exemption of Service Tax with respect to the expenses incurred by the party towards "Consumable Stores" and "Salary paid to their staff" while providing taxable service of "Cleaning Activity" was admissible to the party during the period relevant to April, 2009 to March, 2014. And accordingly, Service Tax liability of the party for the said period was worked out to the tune of Rs. 2,03,45,896/- proposing denial to the claimed deduction of "Consumable Stores" and "Salary paid to their staff" from the gross value of the taxable service, vide the impugned Show Cause Notice. H....