TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g with reduced penalty within 30 days of the order. Further, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under section 77(1) of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 77(ii) of the Act. Late fee of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on the appellant under rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 [Rules] read with section 70 of the Act for delay in filing the returns. 2. The facts which led to the issue of the impugned order are as follows: the appellant was registered with the service tax department and was providing taxable services under the category of manpower recruitment of supply service, management, maintenance or repair service, erection, commissioning and installation service, cleaning service, supply of tangible goods service, works contract service, and site formation and clearance, excavation, earthmoving and demolition service. Gathering intelligence that the appellant had short paid service tax on various services during the period 2009-10 to 2014-15, the premises of the appellant were searched and it was found that on various works orders which the appellant had received from SAIL Bhilai, L & T, SK Samantha and others the appellant had received service charges alo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....51014 1047182 103847321 11555981 231127 115569 11902677 Period As per Return (Rs.) ST-3 As Ledger/Bills Raised (Rs.) per Tax Payable (Rs.) Service Tax paid as per ACES (Rs.) (Difference) service tax payable (Rs.) 2009-10 0 6975711 718498 0 718498 2010-11 0 13173404 1356861 132559 1224302 2011-12 0 25136067 2589015 443721 2145294 2012-13 1854550 2o9466136 3642014 98577 3543437 2013-14 21506530 2658207 788056 1870151 2014-15(up to to Aug. 14) 7589463 938058 0 938058 1854550 103847321 11902677 1462913 10439764 5. Learned counsel for the appellant made the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... set aside and the appeal may be allowed. Submissions of the Revenue 6. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department supported the impugned order and asserted that it calls for no interference. Findings 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records. 8. The demand has been confirmed in this case based on the ledgers/ bills raised by the appellant itself, the profit and loss account and other records of the appellant. It is also a matter of record that the appellant had rendered taxable services to its clients and in some cases even collected service tax on such services but it did not deposit it with the Government. The appellant was registered with the service tax department and, therefore, there is no reason to believe that the appellant was under any bonafide belief that no tax was to be paid or no return was to be filed. The fact that the appellant even collected service tax in some cases from clients but had not deposited it in the Government or recorded in the ST-3 returns also shows the intent of the appellant. 9. In some cases, even though the appellant had paid some amount of service tax as was evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant, and the rest were not provided to the appellant. According to the appellant this would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. We do not find any assertion by the learned authorized representative for the department that the remaining Bills of Entry were also supplied to the appellant supported by any document. To this extent and for this purpose the matter needs to be remanded. 13. The third submission of the appellant is that the total income from the profit and loss accounts were considered for calculating the demand of service tax of which the following receipts were not amenable to service tax. An amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- received from Shri Vishnu Pathak and referred to at Sr. No. 206 at page no. 35 of annexure to the SCN was considered by the department as hire charges for the JCB but, in fact, it was only a loan given by Sh. Pathak which was to be repaid by the appellant. A letter to the effect from Sh. Pathak is placed at the Page 161 of the appeal. We find in favour of the appellant on this count. 14. According to the appellant, during the year 2012-13 the total amount received included an amount of security deposit refunded by SAIL to t....