TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Department alleged, inter alia, that the appellant had rendered Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service without registration, wrongly claimed abatement under Maintenance or Repair Service and short-paid service tax. 2. The appellant, registered under Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service, Maintenance or Repair Service and Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, disputed the demand contending that the work executed for Graphite India was only Manpower Supply Service, that no work was executed for Siemens during the relevant period, and that the demand was based essentially on accounting differences without proper classification or verification of the underlying transactions. The appellant relied upon agreements, invoices, reconciliation statements and the earlier decision of this Tribunal in its own case. The Department, on the other hand, supported the impugned order on the ground that the discrepancies were detected during audit, the appellant had failed to file ST-3 Returns for April-June 2012, had not obtained registration under Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service and had wrongly claimed abatement under Maintenance or Repair Service.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. 8. At the outset, it is necessary to examine whether the controversy already stands concluded by the earlier decision of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case. It is well settled that a Coordinate Bench should ordinarily follow an earlier decision rendered in the case of the same assessee involving identical facts and issues unless it is shown to be distinguishable or has been overruled by a Larger Bench, the jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consistency in judicial decisions is an essential requirement of certainty in tax administration. 9. The appellant relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. T.M.P. Manoharan & Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry, 2023 (11) TMI 15 (CESTAT-Chennai) [Final Order No.40962/2023 dated 30.10.2023], covering the earlier period. In that case, on substantially identical facts arising from scrutiny of the appellant's Balance Sheet, Income Tax records and statutory records, this Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notice failed to properly identify and classify the taxable services or correlate the receipts with the charging provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and that invocation of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vague or omnibus demand founded merely on financial statements without proper classification cannot be sustained. The ratio squarely applies here, where the Department has proceeded on consolidated figures derived from the Balance Sheet and Income Tax records without first determining the taxable value relatable to each taxable service. 13. The same principle emerges from CST v. Purni Ads Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (19) S.T.R. 242 (Tri.-Ahmd.), where the Tribunal held that service tax cannot be confirmed merely on the basis of discrepancies between the Balance Sheet and the ST-3 Returns unless the Department first establishes that the receipts represent consideration for taxable services. It was further held that once the assessee furnishes reconciliation statements explaining the differences, the burden shifts to the Department to disprove the same by cogent evidence. In the present case, although the appellant produced agreements, invoices and reconciliation statements explaining the differences and asserted that the work executed for M/s. Graphite India Ltd. was only Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service and that no work had been executed for M/s. Siemens during the relevant pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....? 17. Having sustained only the admitted liability of Rs.8,96,535/-, we now consider limitation and the consequential liabilities. The Revenue alleges suppression on the basis of non-filing of returns, non-registration and incorrect availment of abatement. The appellant submits that the proceedings were based upon its own Balance Sheet, Income Tax records and ST-3 Returns and that no suppression or wilful misstatement was established. 18. The proviso to Section 73(1), as applicable during the relevant period, permits invocation of the extended period only where the non-payment or short-payment of service tax is by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of the statutory provisions with intent to evade payment of service tax. The burden of establishing these ingredients lies squarely upon the Department. In the present case, the Show Cause Notice itself records that the demand was worked out by comparing the appellant's Balance Sheet, Income Tax records and ST-3 Returns. No incriminating documents, parallel accounts or independent evidence of deliberate concealment have been brought on record. The proceedings are therefore fou....