TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being demanded the appellant did not submit the details and documents, while as per information obtained from Income Tax Department, they had done business for value of Rs.1,76,33,3348/- for the Financial Year 2014-15 to 2016-17 but have not paid the service tax. That have late filed ST-3 returns have not paid the outstanding late fees amounting to Rs.20,900/-. Appellant is basically contractors and had provided taxable services to their clients but the adequate service tax have not been paid by the appellant. Department formed the opinion that the activities undertaken by the appellant which were the sources of income are not covered under the "Negative List" of services as specified under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1944 the provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use no dispute of classification has been raised in the SCN. Decision in C.C. vs. Toyo Engineering India Limited, 2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Department cannot travel beyond the SCN and it is not permissible to raise the issues which are not mentioned in the SCN and in CCE vs. Champdany Industry. Ltd., 2009 (241) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) is relied upon to impress that revenue cannot argue a case which has not been made out in the SCN. 5. It is further submitted that the allegation that the taxable value declared in ST-3 are not matching with the figures of payment received as reported in 26AS statement, is incorrect. The service tax demand cannot be made on the basis of 26AS statement. The decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has reiterated the findings arrived at by the Adjudicating Authorities below. It is submitted that since the huge amount was shown as gross income by the appellant in 26 AS Form filed before the Income Tax department that the appellant was called upon to submit the requisite documents about the period in dispute as no service tax was found paid by the appellant. The comparison of the ST -3 Returns of the appellant to that of 26 AS Form revealed the difference in the gross value received by the appellant. Hence there is no infirmity when the service tax demand has been confirmed against the appellant. 10. Ld. AR further impressed upon that the service tax Returns apparently had been filed with the delay. As per statute, every day delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, details and copies of bills for the financial year 2014-15 to June 2017. But the appellant did not submit any of those documents. Later also vide letter dated 13.05.2019 and the reminder dated 15.07.2019 the appellant was again asked to submit the documents in their defense vis-à-vis the gross value received by the appellant as was apparent from form 26AS but again nothing was produced by the appellant. In these circumstances the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 07.11.2019 was served upon the appellants solely based on the documents received from Income-tax Department. 13. The period in dispute is the post negative list period. From the form 26AS and the ST-3 Returns of the appellant department concluded that appellant was ren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that amount of Rs.2068898/- and of Rs.2012500/- is not pertaining to them and the amount of Rs.10,06,119/- as received by them, is mentioned to be missing from 26AS Form. These have been the reason for the noticed difference. But the authority below has observed that the appellant has failed to produce any evidence about the said plea taken and Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the findings of the original adjudicating authority in this respect. Perusal of para 12 of impugned OIA reveals that the Departmental Adjudicating Authority has meticulously calculated the impugned demand to hold that in absence of work order/bills for the period in dispute, the nature of service the abatement availed and rate of service tax charged in the b....