TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not have any effect on the determination of such amount under Section 73 of the Act. Therefore, the confirmation of service tax demand of Rs.27,92,9271- under Section 73 by the adjudicating authority is upheld along with interest. It however, does not mean that the payment of Rs.15,04,479/- made through various challans would not be considered a payment at all. The same is the job of the Range Superintendent which has to examine at the stage of recovery of arrears after satisfying himself that the payment vide these challans was made against the service tax liability confirmed by the order dated 20.02.2009. 17. The adjudicating authority has also imposed penalty both under Section 76 & 78 of the Act. Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are the underlying provisions for penalty under Service Tax. Section 76 deals with penalty for failure to pay Service Tax whereas Section 78 deal with penalty for failure to pay Service Tax for reasons of fraud, suppression etc. These provisions have undergone amendments with effect from 14th May 2015 vide Finance Act, 2015 in order to rationalize the penalty provisions. Penalty is imposable in terms of the amended Section 78 in view of Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is a basic requirement. Since, the issue involved s basically about factual verification and quantification, we find it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter to the Original Authority for a fresh decision. The assessee/appellant shall be given adequate opportunity to submit all supporting evidence before a decision is taken. We note that the claim of the Revenue regarding incorrect adjustment of tax already paid has to be specifically examined by the Original Authority. 6. In view of the above observation, the appeals are allowed by way of remand." 2.3. In the remand proceedings the Adjudicating Authority decided the issue again holding as follows : "(i) Demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.27,92,927/- (including cesses thereon) (Rs.Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Seven Only) leviable during the period Oct 2001 to March 2006 is confirmed and is ordered to be recovered from M/s KBS Security organization, B-187, Rameshwaram Colony, Baghmugalia under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Noticee is directed to pay the same forthwith. Since the Noticee has already deposited the service tax to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot been appearing ever since the filing of the appeal. 4. We have considered the submissions made in the appeal during the course of arguments. 5. In the remand proceedings the adjudicating authority have after consideration of the documents including challans used for payment of the service tax as claimed by the appellant have observed as follows: "40. Results of the verificatory exercise are mentioned below: 40.1 Bills pertaining to Manpower But included in Security services On scrutiny of bill books seized from the noticee's premises, I find that while calculating service tax liability for the period 01.04.2002 to 18.04.2006 in Annexure F, G & H of the impugried notice, investigation has also included 32 Bills in Security services but the same actually pertained to manpower supply services. During this period, as supply of manpower services were not taxable, service tax is not liable to be demanded. Details are as follows: Sr.No. Annexure to Show Cause Notice Bill No./Bill book Date Party Amount Period 01.04.2002 to 13.05.2003 1 E 20/15 01.07.2002 Optel Communication 9760 2 E 21/15 31.07.2002 Optel Communication 26174 3 E ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... E 665/14 01.06.2002 Chinar Woodland 6466 6400 66 7 E 639/14 01.07.2002 Aakriti Enclave 6508 1650 4858 8 E 650/14 01.07.2002 Bhojpal Estate 2794 2734 60 9 E 653/14 01.07.2002 Optel Communication 1690 1650 40 10 E 14/16 TTTI 117000 0 117000 11 E 21/16 Kusum Housing 58769 2734 56035 12 E 597 Bhojpal Estate 13800 4800 9000 13 E 3/22 01.04.2003 Bhojpal Estate 181800 9600 172200 14 E 6/22 01.04.2003 Kusum Housing 75356 2825 72531 15 E 7/22 01.05.2003 Kusum Housing 78090 2734 75356 Total 875027 57812 817215 Period 01.04.2002 to 13.05.2003 16 F 5/5 01.06.2003 Bhojpal builder 201000 9600 191400 17 F 01.09.2003 Shalimar Enclave 25202 14000 11202 18 F 45 01.05.2004 Chankyapuri Housing 11500 4500 7000 Total 237702 28100 209602 40.3 Bills Cancelled/Not Found/Duplicate Bills Further, I find that the investigation while calculating service tax liability, has also included some bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....required to be paid during the month immediately following the calendar month in which payments are received as per rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, as such Service Tax was required to be paid on the receipt amount and not on the billed amount. They have paid the Service Tax on the amount received as shown in their balance sheet to the tune of Rs.16,22,232/- for 2002-03 Rs.36,09,805/- for 2003-04, and Rs.38,35,338/- for 2004-05 Rs.39,85,620/- for the 2005-06 and Rs 39,49,121/- for 2006-07 along with the difference amount Rs.658445/- @10.2% of Rs.67161/-." 6. From the above observations and details made, we find that original authority had complied with the directions given in the order of the Tribunal remanding the matter back to him. They have gone through entire set of documents including the challans used for payment of tax. We, further observed that for not allowing the complete adjustment of the service tax already paid by the challans adjudicating authority do not deny the fact in respect of the amount paid against that challans. However, only ground for adjustment of the challans was that they are not been co-related with ST-3 in absence of production of ST-3 Returns whil....