2013 (7) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant is engaged in the business of trading of automobile vehicles. The appellant has undertaken activities of providing after sales services to vehicles sold falling under the category of Authorized Service Station. 3. During the course of audit, it was observed by the officers that the appellant had availed inadmissible Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.28,993 on the strength of invoices/bills issued by other service centers, seeking reimbursement of labour charges and Service tax against free coupons issued at the time of sale of new motor vehicles. It was further pointed out by the audit team that the appellant had availed Canvat Credit amounting to Rs. 40,453/of service tax during May 2006 to September 2007 on the strength of bills i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... firmed the finding of the Assistant Commissioner issued by order-in-original No.08-AC/N-1/10-11 dated 31.12.2010 wherein the demand of Rs.1,04,356/was confirmed and equivalent penalty of Rs.1,04,356/was also imposed under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Ld. Counsel has mainly contended that they have deposited the service tax before issue of SCN dated 28.1.2010 but payment of service tax along with interest was made on 1.10.2009. They have further contended that since service tax and interest was paid prior to issue of SCN, no penalty was leviable. But on going through the facts of the case, it is found that the appellant have deposited the interest of Rs.41,380/on 23.12.2010 which is after issue of SCN dated 28.1.2010. Thus, I find that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me out that the appellant have not discharged service tax of Rs.34,910/on the amount collected towards miscellaneous warranty income form M/s.Tata Motors, Pune. 9. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in her order has gone into details all their points which have been raised that the extended period of limitation has been invoked rightly as there is mis-statement and suppression of facts which only came to notice when the audit was conducted. But for the condut of audit, wrong availment of service tax credit would not have come to notice of department. I agree with findings on this ground. 10. Regarding imposition of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994, it requires that there should be ingredients of suppression which have cle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X