TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 78 of the Act is equal to the aforesaid liability of Service tax. 5.8 I find that appellant has deposited the Service tax Rs. 4,05,146/-, interest Rs. 3,51,564/-and penalty Rs. 1,01,287/- vide challan dated 08.12.2023. The said deposited amount is appropriated against the aforesaid liability of Service tax, interest and penalty respectively. I also find that penalty under Section 77 (1)(c) has been imposed for non-submission of information. I find that appellant has submitted the reply of Show cause notice and also appeared for personal hearing before adjudicating authority. Thus, penalty imposed under Section 77(1)(c) of the Act is not proper in the eyes of natural justice. Hence, I set aside the penalty imposed under Section 77 (1) (C) of the Act." 2.1 Appellant is engaged in providing services under "tour operator services, air travel agent services" and are registered with the Service Tax department on vide Service Tax Registration No.ACFPR3748FST001. 2.2 On comparison of information received from the Income Tax department for the financial year 2016-17, with the details as provided by the appellant in their ST-3 following was observed S. N Descript....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service tax & suppressing the facts and value of taxable service with intent to evade payment o service tax. (iv) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(C)(i)(ii)(iii) o Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, 173 & 174 of CGST Act, 2017 for furnishing the information/ not producing the documents/not appearing when issued with a summon before a Central Excise officer." 2.7 The said show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original dated 22.02.2024 referred in para 1 above, holding as follows: "ORDER (i) I confirm the demand of service tax amounting to Service Tax amounting to Rs. 23,55,263/-(Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Fifty-Five Thousands Two Hundred Sixty-Three Only) under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, 173 and 174 of CGST Act, 2017. Since the Party have already deposited an amount of Rs.4,05,146/-, as Service Tax, therefore, said amount may be appropriated against the demand of Service Tax. (ii) I drop the demand of Rs.67,53,312/- (Rs. 91,08,575- Rs. 23,55,263) under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 142, 173 and 174 of CGST Act, 2017 in terms of discussions h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e through the case records and the documents submitted by the appellant. I find that there is a dispute of whether the gross receipt received against the services rendered in respect of Haj Pilgrims and Umara is taxable or not. Appellant refuted the allegation and filed the appeal. 5.2 1 find that Adjudicating Authority has decided the case in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALL INDIA HAJ UMRAH TOUR ORGANIZER ASSOCIATION MUMBAI wherein it has been held that the services rendered by the HGOs to Haj Pilgrims is taxable for service tax as the service to Haj pilgrims is provided or agreeing to be provided in taxable territory. The demand was confirmed by considering the services rendered by the appellant as tour operator. 5.3 On perusal of profit & loss account of the appellant I find that they have received the consideration in respect of three sectors namely Sales of Air Ticket, receipts from Umrah Ticket and receipt from Haj Pilgrimas under:- Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1 Sales of Air Ticket 1,08,800/- 2 Receipts from Umrah Ticket 3,75,15,088/- 3 Receipts from Haj Pilgrim 2,32,52,050/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey also submitted that Hajj date, duration, scheduling, accommodation, sight-seeing or any transportation at Saudi Arabia are decided by the Government of India. On perusal of bill raised by the appellant I find that appellant has collected the gross receipt as 'package' along with service charges hence it cannot be denied that they are Tour operator. They also failed to produce any substantive evidence that they are not working as tour operator. Therefore, I find that adjudicating authority has rightly assessed the Service tax Rs. 9,09,863/- against the gross receipt of Hajj." 4.3 In the present case, I find that Show cause notice dated 08.10.2021 was issued for the period 2016-17 and another show cause notice dated 20.11.2017 was issued to the appellant on the same issue for the period 2012 -2016, on the same grounds. For computing the demand in the notice dated 20.11.2017 following computation table was made: Period Amount Received as per P/L a/c S Tax rate S Tax payable as per P/L a/c S Tax paid under Tour Operator Service as per ST-3 S Tax short paid {4-5} 1 2 3 4 5 6 2012-13 19055000 12.36 2355198 4437 2350761 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oviso to Section 11A of the Act. So far as the assessee is concerned, it has all along been contending that they were not related persons, so, it cannot be said to be guilty of not filling up the declaration in the prescribed proforma indicating related persons. The necessary facts had been brought to the notice of the authorities at different intervals from 1985 to 1988 and further, they had dropped the proceedings accepting that M/s. Pharmachem Distributors was not a related person. It is, therefore, futile to contend that there has been suppression of fact in regard M/s. Pharmachem Distributors being a related person. On that score, we are unable to uphold the invoking of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act for making the demand for the extended period." This judgment was followed by this Court in the case of ECE Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in (2004) 13 SCC 719 = 2004 (164) E.L.T. 236 (S.C.). In para 4, it was observed : "4. In the case of M/s. P&B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [2003 (2) SCALE 390], the question was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked whe....