Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Russell Reynolds Associates India ... vs Cst, Delhi - Ii on 24 September, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 24.09.2013
Date of Decision : 24.09.2013
ST/55585/2013-ST[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 192/S.Tax/DLH/2012 dated 16.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise, Delhi-II]
For Approval & Signature:
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
M/s. Russell Reynolds Associates India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CST, Delhi - II Respondent
Appearance:
Shri K.K. Sharma, Advocate - for the Appellant
Shri Sanjay Jain, AR - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
Final ORDER NO. 57773/2013
Per Sahab Singh :
This appeal is filed by M/s. Russell Reynolds Associates India Pvt. Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal No. 192/S.Tax/DLH/2012 dated 16.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise, Delhi-II.
2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Russell Reynolds Associates India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellants) are engaged in the business of Manpower Placement Services and also registered with the service tax Department. On scrutiny of records by the officers of the Department it was found that appellants have short paid service tax amounting to Rs. 3,80,582/- and also not paid the interest amounting to Rs. 938/- on delayed payment of service tax. It was also observed that appellants did not file half yearly ST-3 Return for the half year ending September 2006 by due date of 25.10.2006 which was submitted by the appellants on 30.10.2006. A Show Cause Notice dated 28.09.2010 was issued to the appellant proposing the demand of short paid service tax along with interest and also proposing the penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original No. 62/2010 dated 29.12.2010 against the appellants which was challenged by them in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal). The Commissioner (Appeal) vide impugned order has rejected their appeal and the appellant are in the Tribunal against the impugned order.
3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the Return of the company for the month of July, 2006 to September, 2006 was submitted by them to the Department and the value shown in the ST-3 Return was gross amount including service tax amount shown in the invoices. As per ST-3 Returns the gross value shown in ST-3 Returns was higher as it included the amount of service tax payable on the service. Later on this mistake was realised by the appellant and they submitted revised ST-3 Returns declaring the value of the service after exclusion of the service tax paid. As a result of which the gross amount of the taxable value for the original ST-3 Return was higher than the value of taxable service in revised ST-3 Return submitted by them. Due to this difference between the taxable values in his ST-3 Returns Department has issued Show Cause Notice. He submits that the documents submitted during hearing of the appeal clearly show that the Service tax amount was paid by them on taxable value shown in the subsequent return. He submits that there is no allegation of suppression of fact and nowhere Show Cause Notice mentions that extended has been invoked in the Show Cause Notice. Therefore the Show Cause Notice and the orders passed by lower authorities are not sustainable.
4. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submits that ST-3 Returns were not filed on the due date and similarly the revised ST-3 Return was not submitted by the appellant within sixty days from date the original date. Therefore the Department has rightly demanded the tax in respect of difference in value between the ST-3 Return.
5. After hearing both the sides, I find that the demand pertains the period July2006, August2006, and September2006 and taxable value as per the original ST-3 Return in respect of these three months is shown as Rs. 53,59,460/-, Rs. 73,54,167/- and Rs. 75,51,009/- respectively. According to appellants these figures are inclusive of service tax paid by the appellants to the service tax Department and by mistake the service tax amount was not deducted from the gross value shown in the service tax ST-3 Returns. Once the mistake was noticed they have submitted revised Return showing the correct value of the service provided by them. Appellants submitted the copies of documents including original ST-3 Returns and revised Returns. I find that the appellants did not submit these documents relating to service tax paid by them before the lower authorities in the absence which lower authorities were not able to examine this contention. I therefore remand the mater back the original authority for examining the issue afresh after taking into consideration all the documents submitted by the appellants and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Appellants are free to raise issue of time limitation before the original authority. Appeal is therefore disposed of by way of remand.
(Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) Neha 1