Judgment:
Ashok Jindal
1. The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order demanding service tax of Rs.42,30,352/- under the category of business auxiliary service.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are registered at Bangalore and providing services as sole selling agents for all types of earth moving equipments and other machines including its accessories and spares manufactured by M/s/.Larsen and Toubro Komatsu Ltd. Therefore, they are liable to pay service tax under the category of business auxiliary service on the commission received from their clients.
3. A show-cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II for demand of service tax on the quantity for the period April 2005 to March 2006. After verifying the fact that out of total demand of Rs.6,56,47,579/- the appellant has paid service tax liability of Rs.6,14,17,227/-. The demand for balance amount of Rs.42,30,352/- has been confirmed. Against said confirmation of demand, the appellant is before us.
4. Shri.Kishore. A Ahuja, Manager (Corporate Indirect Taxation) of the appellant appeared before us ad submitted that the appellants are registered at Bangalore and their Bangalore office is discharging the service tax liability and the entire amount of service tax has been discharged by their Bangalore office. In support of this contention he produced a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant confirming that the entire amount of service tax has been discharged by the appellants. He also produced the reconciliation statement showing the payment due for service tax and service tax paid by them.
5. On perusal of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the reconciliation statement produced by the appellant, it is found that as the appellants are registered at Bangalore and their Bangalore office has discharged the entire amount of service tax, therefore, demands are not sustainable at all. In view of this observation, we have taken up the stay application as well as appeal together for disposal.
6. As nothing is favoured by the appellant, therefore the impugned order does not survive and set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. Stay application is also disposed of in the above manner.