M/s. Ambition Institute Versus Commissioner, CGST, Rohtak
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1522 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 12-10-2018
Appeal No.ST/60907/2018 – A/63318/2018-SM[BR]
Service Tax
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Present for the Appellant: Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri A.K. Saini, AR
ORDER
PER: ASHOK JINDAL
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed on the basis of income surrender before the Income-Tax Department.
2. The facts of the case are that on the basis of information that Income-Tax Department conducted a survey of the appellant on 28.8.2012 where the appellant surrendered a substanti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
icated, the demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and imposed penalties on them. Against this order, the appellant is before me.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the burden lies on the Revenue to establish that while providing taxable service the appellant earned the amount surrendered to the Income-Tax Department. In the absence of the same, the demand of service tax cannot be confirmed in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Garg Furnace Limited vs. CCE, Ludhiana vide Final Order No.62434/2018 dt.1.6.2018. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings in the impugned of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Heard the parties.
6. Consi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
assessee. As the appellant has failed to come with evidence that the said amount surrendered with the Income Tax Department is on account clandestine removal of goods. In that circumstance, demand against the appellant cannot be confirmed in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vardhman Chemtech Limited and others vide Final Order No.A/60931-60932/2016-EX (DB) dated 11.7.2016, therefore, the impugned order is set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.”
7. I hold that the demand on account of income surrendered with the Income Tax Department cannot be confirmed against the appellant.
8. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential rel
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =