TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the appellant was not paying service tax as a recipient of service in terms of the Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, accordingly 2 show cause-notices were issued for the period July 2012 to November 2014 and December 2014 to March-2015, which resulted in Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal CCESA-SRT(APP)-AT-101-2018-19 dated 16.08.2018 the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the service tax demand on the ground that the appellant had acted mischievously and fraudulently by altering the date of stamp paper of the agreement in order to evade service tax payment. Aggrieved by the order the appellants are before us. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant contested the demand on the ground that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of limitation for the reasons discussed in the impugned order. He also finds out that the other recipient party has duly discharged its duty of service tax under reverse charge. I. Shree Ranie Gums and Chemicals Pvt Ltd. 2017(4)GSTL 340 (Tri-Del.) II. Jay Yuhshin Ltd V. CCE, New Delhi 2000(119) ELT 718 (Tri.-LB.) 4. Heard both sides. The only issue to be decided is whether the appellant was liable to pay service tax for the amounts received by them for the services of man power supply under reverse charge mechanism. The period of dispute in the present appeals is from July 2012 to March 2014 and December 2014 to March 2015. There is no dispute that the copy of the agreement/contract entered between the appellant and their clients was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intention to evade payment of duty also needs to be upheld. 6. With regard to revenue neutrality as rightly submitted by the revenue, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd V. CCE, New Delhi 2000(119) ELT 718 (Tri.-LB.) observed as follows: "13. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the reference as under: (a) Revenue neutrality being a question of fact, the same is to be established in the facts of each case and not merely by showing the availability of an alternate scheme; (b) Where the scheme opted for by the assessee is found to have been misused (in contradistinction to mere deviation or failure to observe all the conditions) the existence of an alternate scheme would not be an acceptable defe....