Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Duraflex Services & Constructions ... vs Cc,Ce&St, Visakhapatnam-I on 17 December, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench Division Bench Court I Appeal No.ST/20998/2014 (Arising out of Order-in-original No.VIZ-STX-011-COM-24-13 dt.26/11/2013 passed by CC,CE&ST, Visakhapatnam-I) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Duraflex Services & Constructions Technologies Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Vs. CC,CE&ST, Visakhapatnam-I ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri N.V. Ramana Rao, Consultant for the appellant.
Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing:17/12/2015 Date of decision:17/12/2015 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: G. Raghuram] While disposing the stay application, vide the order dt. 12/11/2014 and for the detailed reasons recorded therein, appellant was directed to predeposit the entire assessed liability within eight weeks and report compliance on 20/01/2015.
2. Appellant thereafter filed ROM application No.20239/2015 dt. 18/02/2015 seeking rectification of the order dt. 12/11/2014. This application was disposed of on 30/04/2015 directing the appellant to approach the jurisdictional authorities and place all the material in support of the claim of having made remittances of service tax. Revenue authorities were directed to verify the same and place the records before this court on the next date of hearing.
3. Learned AR has placed before us a communication from the respondent dt. 13/07/2015. This letter states that the respondent verified the worksheet and documents furnished by the appellant and found that the information provided is merely regarding taxable value and service tax payments declared in the ST3 returns filed for 2007-08 to 2009-10; amounts received from the Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd.(RCFL) apart from ST3 data already furnished; and that the contention of the appellant of having remitted the service tax does not come out from any of the documents furnished. Though the appellant was required to furnish a worksheet to prove that RCFL amounts included in the ST3 returns evidence discharge of service tax, appellants failed to produce any proof to substantiate its contention in this regard nor provided copies of Form-V which would have disclosed information regarding CENVAT credit availed to enable verification of appellants claim that service tax was paid by utilizing credit. The Commissioner thus concludes that the calculation provided by the appellant is unreliable and does not merit consideration.
4. Learned consultant for the appellant contends that the appellant has remitted service tax. Mere continuous reiteration of the assertion does not amount to proof of remittances.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the remittances of the assessed quantum of service tax is not established to have been made by the appellant, in terms of the predeposit ordered on 12/11/2014 while disposing of the stay application. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for failure of predeposit.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) ( G. RAGHURAM ) PRESIDENT Raja (C.J. MATHEW) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) 4