Prime Guard Security Services P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. SR/272/NGP/2009 dated 18.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No 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 Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

Prime Guard Security Services P. Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent

Appearance:

None for the appellant Shri D. Nagvenkar, Addl.Comm. (AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of hearing : 27/01/2015 Date of decision : 27/01/2015

O R D E R No:..

Per: M.V. Ravindran:

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SR/272/NGP/2009 dated 18.11.2009.

2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. The appellant has filed a written submission when the matter was listed for final disposal on 10.11.2014. We have considered the same and taken the appeal for disposal.

3. Heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record.

4. It transpired from the record the differential service tax liability has arisen on the ground that there being mismatch of the amount shown in the Income Tax returns and Service tax returns. It is the case of the revenue the Income Tax returns of the appellant indicate higher figure of income while service tax indicate lesser amount of which service tax liability has been discharged.

5. We find from the records that there is no dispute of the fact the appellant is liable to the service tax liability under the category of security services. It is the case of the assessee appellant that mismatch in the figures in Income Tax returns and service tax returns is due to the fact that Income Tax returns are filed on accrual basis while service tax returns are filed and service tax liability is discharged on actual receipt of the amount.

6. We find that the first appellate authority has disposed of the appeal rejecting the contention of the appellant only on the ground that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence, that is, revenue receipts are lesser than the revenue shown in the return. These findings are recorded by the first appellate authority in para 8 of the impugned order.

7. We are of the considered view, if the appellant is able to show that the revenue receipts are revenue done in the Income Tax returns possibly the first appellate authority could have taken a proper view. Accordingly, we find that the issue needs reconsideration by the first appellate authority.

8. The appellant is directed to produce the records before the first appellate authority to substantiate the claim as to there being lesser revenue receipts than the Income Tax returns. Since the issue is of 2009, we direct the appellant to produce all the documents on which he is relying upon for arguing his case and the first appellate authority should try and dispose of the matter within the period of three months from the receipt of the order.

9. We record that we have not expressed any views on the merits of the issue and have kept all issues open.

10. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated in Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3