Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M P Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Indore ... vs Commissioner Cgst &Amp; Central ... on 18 February, 2020
1
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI.
PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. II
Service Tax Appeal No. 51304 of 2019-SM
(Arising out of order-in-original No. 02/COMMR/ST/IND/2019 dated 18.02.2019
passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Central Goods & Service
Tax, Indore).
M. P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Appellant
Nigam (Indore) Limited
Free Press House, 1st floor
3/54, Press Complex, Agra Mumbai Road, Indore (M.P.)
(Now MPIDC RO, 1st Floor, Atulya
IT Park, Near Crystal IT park
Khandwa Road, Indore (M.P.)
VERSUS
Commissioner, Central Goods and Respondent
Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise Post Box No. 10, Manik Bagh Road Manik Bagh Palace, Indore (M.P.)-452001.
APPEARANCE:
Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the appellant Sh.Y. Singh & Sh. N. Chandra, Authorised Representatives for the respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER NO. 50351/2020 DATE OF HEARING/DECISION: 18.02.2020 ASHOK JINDAL:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of service tax amount to Rs.36,17,013/- has been confirmed against the appellant alongwith interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Department for providing of various kinds of services as service provider and also received various services from their service provider. During the course of audit, various documents were verified and it was noticed that as per balance sheet the appellant has to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism on Legal Consultancy Services and Security Services. The appellant replied the queries raised by the audit team that all the Legal Consultancy Service which they have received in most of the services, service providers had paid service tax and the same is in the case of security service. But instead of verifying the document, a show cause notice dated 24.04.2018 was issued to demand service tax to the tune of Rs.2,17,70,048/-. The appellant contested the issue before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority confirm the demand of Rs. 36,17,013/- alongwith interest and various penalties were imposed against the said order. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before me.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the demand against the appellant is not sustainable as no verification of documents has been done either by the Adjudicating Authority or by the audit team. If proper investigation could have been done, in that circumstances, show cause notice was not required to be issued as in the case of legal consultancy services where service provider has not paid the service tax, the appellant has paid the service tax under reverse charge mechanism and for the remaining amount the service provider has paid the service tax. To that effect, they have produced certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant before the Adjudicating 3 Authority and no consideration by the Adjudicating Authority to that certificate. Same is also with the Security Services. He prayed that the matter be required verification and reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue submits that appellant has not provided copy of invoices, therefore, demand is rightly confirmed.
5. Heard the parties and perused the records.
6. On going through the impugned order, I find that in this case the appellant was never asked to provide copy of invoices to verify whether the service provider has paid any service or not. Therefore, arguments advanced by the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue is not sustainable.
7. Further, I find that in this case, without co-relation / verification by the authorities below has confirmed the huge demand against the appellant which shows negligence on the part of Audit team.
8. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to co-relate the amount of service tax paid by the appellant as well as paid by the service provider and thereafter to compute the correct demand, if payable by the appellant or not.
9. With these observations, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to afford an opportunity to the appellant to 4 provide all the relevant documents. The Adjudicating Authority is at liberty to depute an officer at the premises of the appellant to verify all the records and compute the demand, if payable by the appellant or not.
10. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Pant