TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1913
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iders were not appropriately deposited under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for the exact service availed, that received affirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his above referred order, is assailed in the appeal. 2. Fact of the case would go to reveal that appellant SODEXO is holding a centralized registration number and it is engaged in providing taxable services like cleaning, Manpower supply, requirement finance, business auxiliary, business support services etc. 3. During course of CERA Audit conducted for the year 2013 to 2016 from the records of appellant and visit to the premises of it's appellant. It was found that expenditure booked under foreign currency towards bank guarantee commission, technical assistance, legal and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....much more than the differential duty demand of Rs. 11,75,531/- confirmed against the appellant much before the issue of show cause and also during hearing of the appeal, it has produced Chartered Accountant's certificate to clarify the same but its submissions were not considered by the Authorities below. He further argued that mere payment of service tax under a wrong heading does not mean that service tax has not been discharged since no loss has been incurred by Revenue for payment of such service tax under the wrong heading apart from the fact that that it is Revenue Neutral since Appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit of the said amount paid towards discharge of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism. In support of its stand, it r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provide evidence of payment of tax, for which the ground taken that appellant was eligible to get credit on the tax paid, could not stand in view of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Nirlon Limited Vs. CCE Mumbai as reported in [2015 (320) E.L.T. 22(S.C.). 6. I have gone through the appeal paper book written submission made by the adversaries and the relied upon case laws. At the outset, it is to be stated that the entire amount was paid much before issue of show cause notice, as admitted by the both parties, after it was pointed out to the appellant by the Audit Team that would appropriately cover the appellant under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, in not issuing any show cause notice to the appellant. Further ....