TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 of the Act for delayed payment of service tax Rs. 417,179/- and same will be workout by the Superintendent, Central Excise & Service Tax Range-II, Renukoot. 2.1 The appellant is registered under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 with the Department under Service Tax Registration No. AGPPS6040PSTOOI for 'Maintenance and Repair Service, Cleaning Service; Man power supply Agency Services'. 2.2 On scrutiny of profit and loss account for the period 2008-09 and 2009- 10, it was found that the party has received Rs. 59,51,793 and Rs. 94,90,971 respectively as income from work done/ services provided by them. The party have shown gross value of services in their ST-3 returns for the same period as Rs. 18,14,057/-and Rs 72,86,350/- . respectively and have paid total service tax Rs. 9,65,3737-. 2.3 M/s Hindalco the service recepient provided the details that the appellants have received Rs. 54,67,273/- in 2008-09 and Rs 90,64,603/-in 2009-10 as gross value of services received by them. 2.4 Thus the party have made short payment of service tax of Rs 6,34,493/-, out of which they have deposited Rs 4,17,179/- on 12.09.2009 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anvantri Kumar [AIR 1991 SC 271] • S C Chakrabarty vs State of West v Bengal [1970 (3) SCC 548] • Impugned order and OIO are beyond the SCN, thus are liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: • Ramlala [2023 SCC Online ALL 2479] • SACI Allied Products Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 159] • Inoc Leisure Ltd [2022 (60) GSTL 326 (T-Hyd)] affirmed as reported at [2022 (61) GSTL 342 (SC)] • Balarpur Industries Ltd [(2007) 8 SCC 89] • Brindavan Beverages 9P) Ltd. [(2007) 5 SCC 388] • Suresh Synthetics [(2021) 19 SCC 599] • Toyo Engg India Ltd. [(2006) 7 SCC 592] • The entire demand is revenue neutral. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: • Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd. [2007 (213 ) ELT 490 (SC)] • Jamshedpur Beverages [2007 (214) ELT 321 (SC)] • Extended period is not invokable, the demand is partially time barred. • Mere non registration or non filing of returns does not amount to suppression. • Padmini Products [1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC)] • Chemphar Drugs & Linime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the service provider (i.e. APPELLANT) is exempted from payment of service tax, in terms of Notification No. 8/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 The background of this exemption to service provider is that the principal manufacturer would avail the cenvat credit of service tax paid by the service provider which would be merely a procedural burden. (iv) That the entire exercise is revenue neutral, in as much as even if the APPELLANT are required to pay any service tax on the services provided by the APPELLANT to Hindalco, as is the case of the Department, the said tax paid by the APPELLANT will be admissible as credit to Hindalco. 4.4 Now the following question lies before me to decide i) Whether the demand confirmed without classifying the category of the taxable service is justified? ii) Whether the activities jobs/services in relation to production or processing performed by the appellant are taxable under business auxiliary services or not ? and whether such activities amounts to manufacture in r/o principal manufacturer? iii) Whether Not. No. 08/2005 dated 01-03-2005 as claimed by the appellants is applicable in the instant case ?and whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client;] or or (vi) provision of service on behalfof the client; or (vi) a service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), such as billing, issue or collection or recovery of cheques, payments, maintenance of accounts and remittance, inventory management, evaluation or development of prospective customer or vendor, public relation services, management or supervision and includes services as a commission agent but does not include any activity that amounts to" manufacture" with in the meaning of clause (f) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944]. I am of the opinion that the job processing done by the appellants does not qualify the definition of manufacture and hence are covered under the definition of Business Auxiliary Services 4.9 In the instant case the above job are given to appellants on contract on piece rate basis within the factory at manufacturing floor is covered under Business Auxiliary Service the. . In respect of Not. No. 08/2005 dated 01-03-2005 as claimed by the appellant, it is observed from the detailed chart that the appellant have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d total service tax amounting to Rs. 965,373/-. Hence the party have made short payment of service tax of Rs. 634,493/- out of which party have deposited Rs. 417179/- on 12.09.09 without interest. The remaining amount of service tax i.e. Rs. 217,314/-, is to be paid by the party. These facts came into knowledge of the department at the time of audit and after the query from M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., Renukoot. As per details provided by the M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Renukoot the party have received Rs. 54,67,273/- in 2008-09 and Rs, 90,64,603/- in 2009-10 as gross value of services. However as per Profit & Loss Account for the period 2008-09 and 2009-10, it was found that assessee has received Rs 5951793/- and Rs 94,90,971/- respectively as income from work done/ services provided by them which indicates that party has provided services somewhere else other than M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Renukoot. Hence the total service tax of Rs 217,314/- (including Ed. Cess and Secondar Higher Education Cess) remains unpaid to trhe credit of Central Govt. by doing so, they have made themselves liable for penalty under Section 76 of the Act." Show cause notice at Annexure A enclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Cause Notice issued for the period 2009-10 on 16.03.2011 is well within the normal period of limitation and cannot be disputed on any account. 4.7 In respect of the demand for the period 2008-09, we find that the appellant has deposited the tax for the period on 12.09.2009. From the appellant has deposited the after receiving the same from the M/s Hindalco as per Voucher No 960611770, 222SKS-UCOT-02-09-2009 dated 02.09.2009. The service tax has been deposited as soon as the same was received by the appellant. At the relevant time the service tax was payable on the receipt basis and not the accrual basis. Thus we do not find any delay in the payment of this amount to the exchequer. Hence the proceedings demanding interest in respect of this amount and consequent penalties imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be justified. Thus we set aside the demand of interest made in respect of this amount along with the penalty imposed. 4.8 In respect of the remaining amount we do not find any merits in the submissions made by the appellant that the demand is barred by limitation. As observed in para 4.6 the demand for the entire period 2009-10 is well within the norma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had come to the conclusion that there was clandestine removal of items of tyres from the premises of the assessee on which excise duty was not paid in accordance with law. The Tribunal has taken a plausible view on appreciation of material on record. 16. Now coming to the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the proposition of law laid down therein is well-recognized. However, the aforesaid judgments do not come to the rescue of the appellant as the same are not applicable to the factual situation as noticed above. Further, if the finding of fact regarding clandestine removal of goods is not disturbed, the show cause notice cannot be held to be beyond limitation in terms of proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The findings recorded by the Tribunal being not vitiated by any error of law or mis-reading of evidence do not raise any substantial questions of law." 4.10 In case of ITC Ltd. [2014 (36) S.T.R. 481 (Del.)] Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as follows: "12. What is apparent from the order-in-original, is the fact that the Commissioner had drawn attention of the assessee to Section 65(19), which defines 'Busin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Service Tax under the head 'Business Auxiliary Services' were stated. No doubt, Tribunal has permitted the appellant-revenue to act in accordance with the law, but, they would not able to proceed in terms of and for the periods specified in the show cause notices, which were the subject matter of the order-in-original dated 29-5-2012. 15. Section 65(19) defines what is meant by the term Business Auxiliary Service for the purpose of Service Tax and has seven different sub-clauses. However, anyone reading the said sub-clauses alongwith the assertions made in the notice making reference to the agreements between the respondent-assessee and M/s Srinivasa Resorts Ltd., M/s Laxmi Distributors P. Ltd., Adyar Gate Hotels owner of Park Sheraton Hotels and Grand Bay would understand that reference was with regard to sub-clauses (vi) and (vii). The question was whether the activities performed and undertaken by the respondent-assessee under the agreement would fall in the category and within the meaning of Business Auxiliary Service. It was obvious that sub-clauses (i) to (iv) were not applicable. This leaves only sub-clause (v) and (vi). Sub-clause (vii) relates to service inciden....