By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 15, 2014: THE brief facts are that the appellant provided certain services to Swan Telecom, Santacruz (E), Mumbai and raised a debit note to the tune of ‘Rs.200,098,500' shown in figures and ‘Rupees Twenty four crore thirteen lakh eighty three thousand only' in words. The revenue is of the view that as there is a difference of amount shown in figures and in words of the service provided by the appellant, therefore, they are required to pay service tax on the figures shown in words .

An o-in-o was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II confirming the ST demand along with interest and penalty.

So, simple!

The Bench, after hearing both sides, opined that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Saying so, it waived the pre deposit and took up the appeal.

The appellant submitted that during the impugned period i.e. June 2009 service tax was payable on receipt basis; that the appellant provided the copy of the cheque of the amount received against the services provided along with their ledger account and TDS certificate before the Adjudicating authority but he failed to appreciate these documents and confirmed the demand.

The AR submitted that as the appellant had not produced any document evidencing as to why they received the less amount for service provided, therefore, the demand confirmed is required to be paid by the appellant.

The Bench observed -

"It is no doubt that during the impugned period, service tax is payable on the amount received towards the services rendered. The appellant has shown the evidence of receipt of payment of service provided by way of production of photocopy of cheque, ledger account and TDS certificate. The genuineness of these have not been doubted by the Adjudicating authority. Further, we find that the adjudicating authority or the investigating agency has not taken any steps to verify the fact as to what amount has been paid by the service recipient towards the service provided against the said invoice. Both the service recipient and service provider are under the jurisdiction of the same Commissioner of Service Tax. In these circumstances, we remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to verify the fact how much amount has been paid by the service recipient to the appellant against the amount in dispute."

The matter was remanded for verification purpose only.

The Appeal as well as the Stay application was disposed of.

(See 2014-TIOL-1997-CESTAT-MUM)