AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f audit of appellant's records for the year 2014-2015, it was noticed as follows: (i) The appellant had paid Rs. 20,000/- to the Directors as sitting fee. Said amount attracts service tax under reverse charge mechanism in terms of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20 June 2012. Further verification revealed that the appellants had paid tax on the amount of Rs. 10,000/- out of the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the category of Business Auxiliary Services and have also shown the same in the ST-3 returns. With respect to remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- the appellant vide their reply dated 31.03.2016 had acknowledged that the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was not included due to oversight. Accordingly, service tax amounting to Rs. 1236....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proportionate interest and the appropriate penalties. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide order in original No. 11-17-18 dated 28.08.2017. Appeal against the said order has been rejected vide the order-in-appeal No. 818-17-18 dated 28.03.2018. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned Advocate and Ms. Jaya Kumari, learned Authorised Representative for Revenue. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that at the very initial stage of reply to the show cause notice, the appellant had admitted its mistake about not discharging their tax liability on amount of Rs.10,000/- out of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- as was given to the Director as 'Sitting Fee'. Hence t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel has relied upon the Circular No. 334/1/2010-TRU dated 26.02.2010 which clarifies that promoting a 'brand' of goods, service, events, business entity etc. do not invite the service tax liability. 6. With these submissions, the entire service tax demand along with interest and penalty is prayed to be set aside also on the ground that there is no mala fide/intentional mis-representation or suppression of fact by the appellant. Department could not have produced any evidence to that effect. Thus the show cause notice itself is barred by time due to the said reason. Learned counsel has relied upon the CESTAT decision in the case of CST, New Delhi Vs. Kamal Lalwani - 2017 (49) STR 552 and on the decision in the case of GAC Shipping (India) P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon the following decisions: (i) Warsi Buildcon Vs. Principal Commissioner CCE & ST, Indore - (2024) 17 Centax 37 (Tri.-Del,) (ii) Sikar Ex-Serviceman Welfare Co-Op Society Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. & ST, Jodhpur - 2021 (52) GSTI 75 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Magnum International Vs. Commissioner of Cus. & C.Ex., Bhopal - 2008 (11) STR 176 (Tri.-Del.) The appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the rival contentions, we observe that the only ground of appeal is about confirmation of demand of service tax on notary charges, stamp expenses etc. under reverse charge and imposition of penalty on the appellant but the other part of the impugned order confirming demand on other aspects is also objected while making submissions before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this demand of service tax of Rs. 29,301/- has been confirmed against the appellant. (C) Coming to the demand on account of difference in the amount shown in ledger and one shown in the ST-3 returns that the appellant has submitted that the difference is because of the amount utilized as notary charges and the stamp paper charges but it is an apparent admission that the said amount was paid to the legal consultant only. The amount of consideration paid for receiving legal consultancy services is taxable under reverse charge mechanism and the 100% service tax is to be paid by the service recipient in terms of Entry No. 5 of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20 June 2012. Hence the total amount paid by the appellant to his lawyers is liable....