TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s commercial establishments. On the basis of specific information that the appellant has not discharged their service tax liability, their premises were searched on 13.11.2013 and records were seized. Statements of Shri Ram Pal Singh, proprietor of the company was recorded on 21.02.2014 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As a follow-up action, statement of various service receivers and the Chartered Accountant were also recorded. 3. On the basis of the investigation, show cause notice dated 22.04.2014 was issued on the allegation that the appellant provided the services and collected the taxable amount, including service tax from the service receivers but has not paid the service tax for the period from October 2008 to March 2013, amounting to Rs.1,15,92,995/-. Proposal was also made for levying interest and penalties. As the appellant failed to submit any reply to the show cause notice and also did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority despite several opportunities having been granted, order-in-original dated 12.01.2016 was passed ex-parte confirming the demand. On appeal, the Tribunal vide order dated 07.05.2019 was pleased to set aside the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties of lump-sum basis loading /unloading, stacking of raw material and finished goods which are integrated to manufacturing process have not been correctly appreciated as although on the one hand, the Adjudicating Authority accepted that such work done cannot be subjected to service tax but, on the other hand, has denied the said proposition of law in case of number of service recipients on the ground that the appellant had not submitted the documentary evidence. Lastly, the learned Counsel has challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation on the ground that there is no question of any suppression or any fraud, willful mis-statement or suppression of facts as the activities of lump-sum basis does not attract service tax and the service tax amounting to Rs.5,81,943/- was paid by the appellant. Reference is invited to series of decisions justifying that extended period cannot be invoked as allegations of suppression, fraud wilful misstatement have not been substantiated by the Revenue. 8. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. On the issue of cross-examination, he submitted that even if the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s examination in as much as there is no such requirement under the provisions. 10. Once we have held that the statements recorded under section 14 cannot be looked into for want of compliance with the provisions of section 9D, we need to consider whether there is any other evidence in support of the case of the department. During the course of investigation, the Department had recovered documentary records in the form of balance sheets, invoices, bills etc and on scrutiny of these documents, it was revealed that the appellant have charged the amount of service tax payable in the bills raised on the service receivers and collected the payments towards services rendered, however, they have not discharged their service tax liability towards receipt of such payments. That almost all the service receivers had made the payment to the appellant through cheques. The balance sheet for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13 establishes beyond doubt that the appellant received payments against 'Manpower, Supply Agency Service' and 'Security Agency Services' provided by them to various service receivers. On that basis, a chart has been drawn by the Department as under:- Year Details of taxable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id on lump sum basis, resultantly the same has been held to be not covered within the definition of 'Manpower Supply & Agency Services ' and consequently, no service tax is leviable. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Divya Enterprises versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore-2010(19)STR - 370 and also in the case of M/s S.S. Associates versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-2010(19) STR - 438, holding that contract for execution of work of loading/unloading, bagging, stacking, and de-stacking is not covered under 'Manpower, Recruitment, or Supply Agency Services'. The tenor of the agreement indicated execution of lump sum work or job. On the contrary, in the case of M/s. Cyano Pharma Pvt. Ltd, the Adjudicating Authority had categorically noted that the appellant had not provided any documentary evidence, especially the agreement to substantiate the claim that they were providing the lumpsum services. Similarly, in the case of M/s. IPCA Laboratories Ltd, the agreement submitted by the appellant was considered and it was found that the same was in respect of labour supply only and the appellant had not received payments on lump....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner despite request made in that regard. Taking note of the Circular dated 13th June, 1988, issued by Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, where directions have been issued to the concerned officers in relation to the seized documents to be returned, the Court observed that un-relied documents may not be relevant for the purposes of revenue, but may be of some relevance to the affected party in preparation of the reply to the show cause notice and therefore, the request made by the petitioner to return the un-relied documents to enable them to prepare their reply to the show cause notice was not frivolous. Similar directions have been issued by the Tribunal in Shree Wood Products (Private) Limited versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi-2005 (190) ELT 97 (Tri. Delhi), the relevant para is quoted below:- "3. We find that the appellant made request for supply of the documents/records which were not relied upon in the Show cause Notice which were taken into possession by the Revenue, were declined by the adjudicating authority on the ground that these documents are neither relied upon nor relevant to the allegation We find that the Circula....