TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... services of manpower supply from M/s Setu Consultancy. It was noticed that M/s Setu Consultancy was a proprietary firm as reflected in the copy of invoice No S- 012/13-14 dated 31.03.2014 issued by M/s Setu Consultancy. Being a proprietary firm M/s Setu Consultancy comes under Non- Body corporate. As per Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012 with effect from 01.07.2012, in case where the manpower service provider is a non body corporate and service receiver is a body-corporate, service provider has to pay 25% service tax & remaining 75% service tax has to be paid by service recipient as provided under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) under section 68(2) of the Finance Act 2012. Therefore, the assessee, who is the service receiver, is a body corporate and a service provider is a non body corporate therefore, as per the provision contained under Notification No. 30/2012 dated 20.06.2012 with effect from 01.07.2012, the assessee (Service receiver) is liable to pay 75% of the total service tax to be paid on the total value of man power supply services received under RCM. The assessee has not paid the service tax amount though they were liable to pay. 2. Accordingly, A show cause no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the department case of demand of service tax on appellant and disallowance of cenvat credit is on the ground that even though the transport agency has discharged the service tax since they are not liable to pay the service tax, the payment made by them is deposit. Consequently the appellant is liable to pay the service tax on GTA on reverse charge mechanism as well as the amount paid by the transport agency being deposit, the appellant is not entitled for cenvat credit. We find that even though legally the appellant is liable to pay the service tax but in the facts of the present case the transport agency has admittedly paid such service tax. The assessment of payment of service tax by the transport agency has not been disputed by their jurisdictional officer, therefore no question can be raised as regard the service tax payment and assessment thereof at the end of the transport agency. If this be so, then the payment of service tax by the goods transport agency was made good as payment of service tax therefore, the demand against the appellant for the same service will amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with consequential relief, to the appellant." Umasons Auto Compo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex Aurangabad2016 (46) STR (Tri. Mumbai) "Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order whereby the demand of Service Tax was confirmed. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellant being recipient of GTA service is liable to pay Service Tax. 3. The Contention of the appellant is that the appellant had paid the Service Tax to the provider of GTA service and the provider has paid to the Revenue and the appellant has availed credit of the same. As the Service Tax has already been paid by the provider of GTA service and Revenue is demanding the same tax from the recipient. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. The appellant also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & C, Vadodara-II reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 421 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 4. The Revenue relies upon the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that as per the provisions of the Finance Act, recipient is liable to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5% of the Service Tax on 'Manpower Recruitment Agency Service' availed. For the initial period, on pointing out by the Revenue the appellant immediately paid Service Tax. In that circumstance, the said demand is not sustainable against the appellant. For the another invoice on which the appellant did not pay Service Tax but the service provider paid the 100% of Service Tax. In that circumstance, the appellant is not required to pay 75% of the Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 30/2012-S.T., dated 20-6- 2012. I also observed that if the payment has made by the appellant, the same shall become double taxation against the appellant which is not permissible in the law. In that circumstance, the demand of Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 30/2012- S.T., dated 20-6- 2012 is not sustainable against the appellant. 7. In the result, the impugned order is not sustainable, therefore, the same is set aside, therefore, the appeal is allowed." Nagraja Printing Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem2010 (19) STR 828 (Tri.-Chennai) "The assessees herein contend that the entire Service tax amount of Rs. 3,052/- confirmed against them on the ground that they were the '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Rule 9(1)(f) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on which credit can be taken. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The appellant will be entitled to consequential benefit, if any, in accordance with law." Commissioner of Service Tax, Meerut-II Vs. Geeta Industries Pvt. Ltd.-2011 (22) STR 293 (Tri.- Del.) "Revenue came in appeal because the service recipient of Goods Transport Agency has not paid the service tax while the transporter itself had paid the service tax. This appeal is to realize service tax from the recipient itself. 2. Learned DR is praying for reversal of the order of the learned first appellate authority. Learned Counsel support the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. There is no dispute that service in question has suffered tax. The only dispute is the person who shall pay the service tax. When the treasury has not been affected by virtue of collection of service tax from the service provider as is the case of the Revenue and there is no legal infirmity in the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) there cannot be double taxation of same service. But it is ....