TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kolkata, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 17, 49, 80, 653/- along with interest and equivalent amount of tax as penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., 22, Camac Street, Block-D, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700016 (the Appellant herein) is a marketing office of the east zone. The Appellant obtained service tax registration, as a service recipient, under GTA Service category for payment of tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism ('RCM'). 2.1. During the underlying period from FY 2009-10 to FY 2012-13, the Appellant incurred various transportation expenses (by road/ rail), and other expenses incidental and ancillary thereto. All such ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 52, 30, 644 17, 49, 80, 654 2.3. On the basis of such allegations, a Show Cause Notice bearing No. C. No. V(15)330/ST- Adjn/Commr/14/19872 dated 20.10.2014 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs. 17, 49, 80, 654/-, along with interest and penalty. 2.4. On adjudication, the Ld. Commissioner, vide the impugned order, confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 17, 49, 80, 654/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of tax as penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the said demands, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the amounts reflecting in the books of accounts (balance sheet, profit an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order to substantiate the reasons for the differences, the appellant submitted various certificates from Chartered Accountants, expressing an independent and unbiased view on the taxability/ non-taxability of the amounts reflecting in the books of accounts. They have submitted a summary of such differences as explained in the CA certificate is as follows: a. Exempt Consignments: * The Appellant received GTA services from certain service providers where the value of individual consignments transported was less than Rs. 750/- whereas for multiple consignments, was less than Rs. 1, 500/-. * Since such GTA serviceswere exempt from levy of service tax vide Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and Notification No. 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead of 'transportation charges' in the books of accounts comprised of purchase of goods (tarpaulin, rope and other miscellaneous goods) summing to Rs. 19, 83, 688/- * An amount of Rs. 19, 83, 688/- incurred on such purchase has been duly certified by the Chartered Accountant. e. Provisions created in the books of accounts: * Provisions summing to Rs. 14, 55, 14, 470/- made in the books of accounts cannot be subject to service tax since these are not actual expenses but only a mandatory provisions which recognize the expenses to be incurred during a particular financial year. 3.3. However, the appellant points out that without having any regard to the Appellant's submissions and the CA Certificates, the impugned Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from levy of service tax vide Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the Appellant did not discharge the service tax under RCM. * The value of such exempt services sums to Rs. 15, 80, 36, 760/- as certified by the Chartered Accountant. (ii) Transportation by rail: * As per the definition of GTA services under Section 65(105)(zzzp) of the Finance Act, 1994, such services do not include within their ambit the services of transportation undertaken by rail. * Therefore, such services cannot be held taxable under RCM under the category of GTA services, and hence, the demand to such extent ought to be set aside on this ground alone. * The value of such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tants, who are Statutory Auditors of the Appellant, without providing any legal basis for such requirement. We do not agree with the reason given by the ld. adjudicating authority to reject the CA certificate. It is trite law that a certificate from an expert in the accounting profession, has immense evidentiary value. Therefore, such certificate ought to be objectively examined. We observe that this view has been held in the case of Hero Motocorp Ltd. V. Commissioner of C.Ex. (Import & General) [2014 (302) E.L.T. 501 (Del.)]. Further, such certificate cannot be brushed aside without providing another expert opinion to the contrary. This view has been held in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Guntur v. Empee Sugar & Chemicals [2007 (2011) ....