2025 (5) TMI 1831

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 12.09.2017 The impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 32,83,125/- along with interest and penalty on M/s Agarwal Builders & Colonizers Appellant No. 1  and on M/s Agarwal Builders Appellant No. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 & 2 are engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential complexes. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agrawal is a Partner in aforesaid firms and Mr. Dinesh Sabharwal is Sr. Manager Finance and Accounts. During the course of audit of M/s Agrawal Builders & Colonizers for the period 2011-12, the audit party observed that the amount of Rs 1.25 crores for Agrawal Builders and Colonizers was shown in profit and loss a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....overed by Tribunal's decision in the following cases:- (i) Shree Kankeshwari Enterprise versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar (2023) 9 Centax 77 (Tri-Ahmd.) (ii) J. P. Ispat Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I 2022 (63) GSTL 64 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (iii) Goyal and Co Construction Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax 2022 (4) TMI 735-CESTAT AHMEDABAD (iv) Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Central Excise, Jaipur vs. M/s Lotus Cons Build Technocrate Private Limited 5. A perusal of the records indicates that the present demand was proposed based on the statement of the director wherein had stated that amount disclosed b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng authorities the demand made under the provisions of Central Excise Act cannot be incorporated as such, more so when the notice of demand has been modified by the adjudicating authority. In the case of Kipps Education Centre, Bathinda v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2009(13) S.T.R. 422 (Tri. Del.), it was held by this Tribunal that income voluntarily disclosed before the income tax authorities could not be added to the taxable value unless there is evidence to prove the same. In this case also, there is no evidence to show that the income disclosed is the part of taxable service. Hence I do not find any infirmity in the impunged order. Accordingly, stay application as well as the appeal are rejected. " 6. This Tribunal also fol....