TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, Maintenance or Repair Service'. From third party information as was received from Income Tax department, revenue came to know that during financial year 2012-2013, the appellant had received total payment of Rs. 34,43,895/- during period 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 on which TDS was deducted under Section 194C and Section 194H of Income Tax Act, 1961. Whereas, w.e.f. 01.07.2012 all the services have become taxable except the services mentioned in the Negative list under Section 66D. The services as mentioned above provided by the assessee are neither mentioned under the negative list under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 nor exempted under mega exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 or by any other Notification issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3,69,655/- was ordered to be recovered with interest and penalties. Show cause notice was denied to be barred by time. In an appeal against said order Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the same vide order No. 242/2022 dated 25.11.2022. Being aggrieved of this order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard Shri Bipin Garg, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Jwaria Kainaat and Shri Arun Sheoran, learned departmental representative for the revenue. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that appellant had submitted the defence reply on 1st September 2020 denial all the allegations and explaining the facts that total tax liability can at the most be Rs. 56,010/- which was deposited on 30 April 2014. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o written submission was tendered even before the adjudicating authority. The matter was remanded given directions to the appellant to submit all the documents and to make averments. Post remand also several opportunities of personal hearing were given to the appellant, but he did not attend the same except that reply to show cause notice was submitted on 01.09.2020 and once appearance was marked on 20 February 2021. The order under challenge is thus passed due to non-submission of relevant document like payment ledger, Form 26AS, invoices etc. 7. It is mentioned that whatever invoices have been submitted there is apparent over-writing in the dates of the invoices. The said cutting is sufficient act of mis-representation as well as suppres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant and Tata Motors Ltd. ; (iii) Form 26AS for April 2012 to March 2013 ; (iv) Invoices of free service from July, 2012 which are liable to service tax on full value ; (v) Invoices for warranty, repair from July, 2012 being work contract service, 50% service tax was to be paid by the service recipient ; (vi) The value of the goods/the tax as were replaced while rendering services during the impugned period ; (vii) The deposit challan dated 30 April 2014 for paying service tax of Rs. 56,010/- ; (viii) ST-3 returns for the period April - June 2012, July - September 2012. ST-3 return for October 2012 to March 2013 as was filed on 06.05.2014. 9. The order under challenge is also perused. The only dispute in the case is observe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the department to calculate the amount received by appellant for rendering taxable service during the disputed period. 11. The invoices produced by the appellant reflects that amount of Rs. 4,29,771/- is the value of the parts of vehicle, which were replaced while rendering maintenance services to the vehicles. Though the department has relied upon department clarification Circular No. 96/7/2007 dated 23.08.2007 but the parts replaced cannot be considered as the inputs in providing the service. The transfer of parts of vehicle while rendering service was purely the transfer of property in goods, hence, cannot form the value of the service provided. Thus the appellant activity amounts to works contract service whereupon appellant was e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the consideration for providing any taxable services or the difference was due to any exemption or abatement. The demand cannot be confirmed. I draw my support from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kush Constructions versus CGST Nacin, ZTI, Kanpur reported as 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 606 (Tri. - All.). The appellant has also shown his eligibility to avail the SSI exemption. In the light of Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20 June 2012, I find no reason to deny the the said contention. 14. Finally it is observed that the original adjudicating authority has acknowledged receiving ST-3 returns filed by the appellant and the deposit of service tax as was self-assessed by the appellant, the same is sufficient to falsify the alleged sup....