TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional Commissioner, CGST Lucknow holding as follows : - "ORDER a. I confirm the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 78,79,420/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Only) (including cess) on the party under the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017. b. I confirm the demand of interest at the appropriate rate under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the party. c. I impose penalty of Rs. 78,79,420/- (Rupees Seventy Eight Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Only) (including cess) (Rupees Two Crores Eighty Four Lakhs Seventy Two Thousands Eight Hundred Thirty Nine only), upon the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount against the taxable services provided during the period. However, their Service Tax Return (ST-3) for this period obtained from SS portal did not reflect these amounts as the gross receipt. Accordingly, Revenue was of the view that Appellant short paid service tax as detailed below : - Financial Year Total Value as per 26AS Value as per ST-3 Difference Taxable Value Service Tax @ Rate Service Tax 2013-14 60664145 455970 60208175 12.36% 7441,730 2014-15 2874591 0 2874591 12.36% 355299 2015-16* 568205 0 568205 14.50% 82390 Total 7879420 2.4 By invoking the extended period of limitation a Show Cause Notice dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred in Para 01 above. 2.6 Aggrieved Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) which has been disposed of as per the impugned order. 2.7 Aggrieved by the impugned order Appellant have filed this Appeal. 3.1 Matter has been listed on 11.03.2025, 28.03.2025 & 16.04.2025. None appeared on 11.03.2025 and today. Matter was adjourned for today on the basis of the written request received from the Appellant on 28.03.2025. 3.2 As the matter has been listed for sufficient number of times no further adjournment could have been allowed in terms of Section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The same is reproduced below:- [(1A) The Appellate Tribunal may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of hearing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd, I find that they charged the commission amount only and no Service tax was charged by them. Thus, I am of the opinion that the above mentioned commission amount was inclusive of Service tax and the appellant was eligible for benefit of cum-tax value in terms of Section 67(2) of the Finance act, 1994. Hence, the appellant was liable to pay Service tax amounting to Rs.7,96,139/-after extending the benefit of cum-tax value against which the appellant had eady deposited Service tax of Rs.56,358/ as per ST 3 return. As such, the peliant is required to pay differential Service tax of Rs.7,39,781/- along with interest and mandatory penalty equal to this amount of Service tax under Section 78 of the Act, ibid. .............................
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed by setting aside the impugned Order-In- Original No. 07/ADC/LKO/2020-21 dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. (III) Make any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4.5 In the present case I observe that the Appellant had collected the amounts in terms of the MOU signed between them and M/s Ansal Properties & M/s Sputnik Realtors Pvt. Ltd. with respect to the commission per acre to be paid to them. The fact about these amounts being collected by them was never disclosed by them to the Revenue Authorities or in their ST-3 Returns. Thereby they suppressed the value of taxable services being provided by them wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was extended in Order-In-Original the same has not been extended in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby major amount of demand has been dropped (demand confirmed by Order-In-Original is Rs.78,79,420/-and by Order-In-Appeal is only Rs.7,96,139/-) it was thus necessary for the Commissioner (Appeals) but have specifically extended this benefit of payment of penalty at 25% of the tax short paid in terms of this provisions. 4.8 Ahmedabad bench has in the case of Kalpesh Founders & Engineers-2009 (248) E. L. T. 354 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has held as under : - "5. Admittedly, the Original Adjudicating Authority had vacated the show cause notice in its totality. The demand of duty was increased and penalty was imposed by Comm....