TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice, Legal Consultancy Service, Rent-a-Cab Scheme Operator Service etc. During the course of the audit of appellant records, the Department, for the financial year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17, observed the following: (i) The appellant collected tender fee under eprocurement from various clients for bidding and also provided services for Digital Signature Certificate under e-procurement. The service tax liability on the services has been calculated treating the gross receipts as inclusive of service tax and paid to the Government without producing any evidence to substantiate that the gross amount charged by them in their document was inclusive of service tax payable, accordingly the service tax amounting to Rs. 32,61,876/- was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amounting to Rs. 44,83,634/-(32,61,876/-+8,26,764/- +3,94,994/-). The interest at the proportionate rate and the appropriate penalties were also proposed to be imposed. The said proposal was confirmed vide the Order-in-Original 51/2020 dated 20.10.2020. In an appeal against the said order, Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the service tax demand of Rs. 32,61,876/- on receipts of 'tender fee under e-procurement' for biding and fee receipts for providing Digital Signature Certificates by the appellants. The remaining demand of Rs 12,21,758/- has been confirmed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Kunal Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Suresh Nandanwar, learned Authoriz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ender documents. The fee was fixed by the Department of Rajasthan Government itself. There cannot be charged any service tax for the supply of documents. The demand alleging the activity to be declared service is therefore liable to be set aside otherwise also Department has failed to establish as to how and what activity, in lieu of which the tender fee was received would fall under clause (e) to Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994. Decision in the case of Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar & Company reported as 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC) is relied upon. 3.3 Finally, it is submitted that the impugned show cause notice has been issued while invoking the extended period of limitation. The appellant was maintaining all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f (SD) and (EMD), the learned DR has acknowledged that the issue is no more res integra. The appeal is however, prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the parties, it is observed that initially the demand was confirmed, by the original adjudicating authority on three of the counts as were pointed out and proposed in the impugned show cause notice. However, Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the major demand viz-a-viz the amount of tender fee under e-procurement for bidding and providing the digital signature certificates by the appellants, the demand which still has been confirmed is on following two counts: (i) On the amount of (SD) and (EMD) forfeited on amount of breach of terms of contract (delay in completion work/non-perfo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 (4) Centax 271 (Tri.-Bom.). Not only this, the circular No. 214/1/2023-ST dated 28.02.2023 has clarified that the amount collected as liquidated damages are not susceptible to tax. It reflects that the nontaxability of the forfeited EMD and SD amounts on account breach of the contract is well settled and stands accepted by the Department. The Commissioner (Appeals) is held to have committed an error while ignoring the settled position of the decided case law and department's own circular. The demand on first issue is therefore liable to be set aside for the said reasons. 6. With respect to the tender fee collected from the bidders, it has been the appellant's stand since beginning, that the said amount was received to give tender do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owards provision of service. The order confirming the demand of service tax on this amount is therefore liable to be set aside, we draw our support from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur 2024 (11) TMI 1445-CESTAT New Delhi. 7. Finally, coming to the issue of invoking extended period of limitation as already observed above that the appellant was not paying the service tax under the belief of inviting no liability for the same. One of the issue on which the demand has been confirmed was already settled issue in favour of the assessee. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Department to produce the proof of some positive act....