Rama Shankar Sharma Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Allahabad)
CESTAT Allahabad held that when amount of service tax has been determined by the department during the course of investigation then levy of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 justified.
Facts- Appellant is registered as service provider, providing services mainly to M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., Renukoot, Sonbhadra.
On scrutiny of records of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. as service recipient, it was observed that appellant was providing taxable services under the category of Cargo Handling Service, Clean Service, Maintenance & Repair Service, Man Power Recruitment Agency Service & Construction (Commercial & Industrial) Service to the service recipient. However, they have not discharged the service tax due in respect of these services.
Notably, appellant in the present case even before the Original Authority also did not contested anything in the show cause notice except for certain computations.
Conclusion- No deduction under the Head “Provident Fund” is permissible in the above provisions and I therefore, hold that the taxable value of Rs.22,93,296/- for which deduction has been claimed by the party is part of the value of taxable services and is not allowed.
Held that the party failed to discharge the statutory burden of declaring the value of taxable service to the department which amounts to suppression of facts, and provision of extended period is invokable in this case. Accordingly, I hold that the proviso of section 73 (1) of the Finance Act has rightly been invoked and therefore the demand is not barred by limitation.
