TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, Proprietor Shri Avdhesh Kumar Jaiswal is registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of 'Clearing & Forwarding Agent Service'. On the basis of third-party information provided by the Income Tax Department for the Financial Year 2012-13 it was observed that the Assessee had received an amount of Rs.61,30,635/- from M/s Abhyuday Housing & Construction Pvt. Ltd. Under Section 194C. Letters were issued and documents were asked for which was complied with. However, while issuing the Show Cause Notice [SCN] the period covered was from Financial Year 2012-13 to 2014-15 and the receipts as shown in From 26AS under Section 194H, 194C, 194I & 194IB have been considered which is as under:- (Amount in Rs.) F/Y Amount Rece....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irty Six Only) against M/s Kushal Associates (Prop. Shri Awadhesh Kr. Jaiswal), C & F. Agents, 256, Firoz Gandhi Nagar, Raebareli-229001, out of the total demand of Rs. 13,21,665/- under Section 73(2) of Finance Act 1994. As the party has already deposited Rs. 1,36,391/- vide challans as mentioned at para no. 25 above, hence I appropriate the same. 2. I drop the demand of Rs. 4729/- (Rs. Four Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Nine Only) out of the total demand of Rs. 13,21,665/- (Rs. Thirteen Lakh Twenty One Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Five Only). 3. I order to recover interest on confirmed amount of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 13,16,936/-(Rs. Thirteen Lakh Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six Only) from M/s Kushal Associa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-(Rs. Thirty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the credit of Central Government. under Section 70 (1) of Finance Act. 1994 readwith Rule 7/ 7C of Service Tax Rules 1994." 4. Being aggrieved the Appellant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned Order-In-Appeal upheld the demand as confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. However, he modified the penalty imposed under Section 78 to Rs.6,58,468/- (i.e.50% if confirmed demand of Service Tax of Rs.13,16,936/-). The other penalties and late fine imposed were upheld. Being aggrieved the Appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant filed written submissions and var....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to whether the said amount is actually received for provision of service or has it been received for any other purpose. In the event of the latter, no Service Tax is applicable. That despite this being incumbent upon the Commissioner (Appeals), no finding has been given by the authority to demonstrate that the amount which is getting reflected in the ITR and Form-26AS of the Appellant is against services rendered by it thus being chargeable to Service Tax. Learned Advocate submitted that the impugned Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside on this ground alone that no finding on merits of the matter has been given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 9. Learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue justified the im....