2024 (11) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gaged in providing man, power recruitment and supply agency service, which is taxable. The service tax was Leviable on the gross amount so collected by the appellant against the services provided by them. On the examination of the appellant's documents, it was revealed that the appellant was paying applicable service tax on monthly basis, only in the cases where they received amount in the name of the services provided to them. However, the appellant was found not paying any service tax in the cases where they received value of services, but no amount was received by them in the name of service tax from the service recipient/the appellant's client. 2. From the statement of appellant, his clients and all other concerned and during the fur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....however, have contested the quantum of demand on following three grounds: i) The demand should be calculated on the basis of ledgers of the service recipient and not on the basis of ledgers of the profit and loss(P/L ) account. ii) Benefit of tax value be granted iii) Extended period has wrongly been invoked while issuing the SCN. 6. With the submissions, the order under challenge/ Order-in-Appeal is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed 7. While rebutting the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, Ld. AR for the department has reiterated findings of the impugned order under Challenge and Has prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal 8. Having heard both the parties at l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by extending the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the original Adjudicating authority has given the contradictory findings. The findings while denying the cum-tax benefit are contradictory to the findings when section 80 of the Finance Act has been invoked. The appellant thus is held to have the bona fide belief about his liability to the extent of the tax paid who otherwise was acting on the advice of his clients in good faith. The relevant para of the order reads as follows: "...Their bonafide belief that whatever tax was charged was only required to be paid is obviously borne out of the fact that they were acting on the advice of their clients. It is also not a case where they ....