TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... read with Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 [Rules, 1994] and also penalty under Section 77(2) of the Act. 2. The appellant is engaged in providing taxable services in the name and style of M/s. Jai Mata Di Enterprises as its proprietor. On the basis of an intelligence that the appellant was not discharging their service tax liability, investigation was made leading to disclosure that the appellant provided taxable services of laying of optical fibre cables to BSNL, L&T, Reliance Corporation, and other customers for which they had charged and collected service tax. The appellant filed ST-3 returns for the period of 2013-14, wherein they declared the value of taxable services as 'NIL'. During investigation, the appellant admitted serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able as part of the demand. The interest in terms of Section 75, penalty under Section 78 and late fee under Section 70 along with penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(2) was confirmed by the impugned order. The appellant has assailed the said order in this appeal. 4. The present appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 13.08.2019, however, as and when the matter has been listed for regular hearing, the appellant failed to appear. Since the notice of hearing was received as undelivered with the remark that the "addressee has left without instruction", the learned Departmental Representative was directed to serve the notice and accordingly, he placed on record copy of email dated 9.05.2025, acknowledging the receipt of the said notice by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime. Further, next opportunity was given for attending personal hearing on 06.02.2019. However, again none appeared in the P.H. The noticee vide their letter dated 11.02.2019 informed that he was out of station on account of business and he could not intimate his counsel regarding personal hearing and therefore he could not attend the hearing. Further, he requested to grant an adjournment for 3 weeks and requested for another opportunity to appear for the hearing. Considering his request, the next date of personal hearing was fixed on 14.03.2019. However, the P.H. again went unattended. One last opportunity for personal hearing was again given to noticee on 29.03.2019. The noticee neither appeared for the PH nor sought any adjournment again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the circumstances, we hold that it is the appellant who though collected had not paid the service tax to the government exchequer to discharge his service tax liability. 8. The next contention raised by the appellant is that the demand of service tax on private work from the appellant for the period 2013-14 does not stand on legal footings. It is submitted that the department has arrived at the value from the gross receipt of Rs.3,37,36,160/- as reflected in the profit and loss account in balance sheet, but did not take cognizance of 26AS statement showing value of Rs.34,17,340/-. Taking the benefit of cum-duty, the appellant submits that the service tax liability therefore arises on the taxable value of Rs.31,30,420/- which comes to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem to the appellant to the extent of 50% of the service tax liability and the remaining 50% of service tax was discharged by them under Reverse Charge Mechanism. There is no iota of doubt that the appellant had charged service tax from the service recipients and the same was paid by them. The appellant in support of the submission that the services provided to L&T were exempt from service tax, had not placed any documents in support thereof, on the contrary L&T vide their letter dated 28.09.2018 furnished copies of work orders issued to the appellant, copies of bills raised by the appellant and a statement mentioning service tax paid to the Contractor. We find that on the work orders with material, service tax has been reimbursed by L&T by....