9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appropriate service tax liability on such services. The appellant are also providing services of 'digital signature certification' on which service tax liability was not applicable as per the CBEC circular no.137/76/2008-CX(4), dt. 05.06.2008. The appellant has been availing benefit of Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid on various input services which are used by them for providing taxable service as well as non-taxable service. The appellant has not maintained separate accounts in respect of receipt, consumption and inventory of input services used in both the categories. It was noticed by the lower authorities that appellant utilized whole of the Cenvat Credit of service tax towards payment of service tax liability on the taxable ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to the definition of exempted services and submit that it would not encompose the services which are non-taxable as taxable services stand defined under various sub-clauses of Section 65(105). He would submit that when the services digital signature certification is not liable to levy itself would mean it is not a service which can be called as exempted services. It is his submission that by applying the maxim 'ejusdem generis' or 'noscitur a socii' the word service used in the definition of exempted services in the second limb has to be read with taxable service. It is his submission that various case laws though pertaining duty of central excise would support his case. He relies on: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II - 2013 (29) STR 229 (Raj.). After taking us through the facts of the case, and the facts of the case in Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II, he would submit that facts are similar and there is no difference. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the appellant should be penalized. He reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 6. In rejoinder, Ld. Counsel would submit that in the case of Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II (supra) relied upon by the revenue, there is a specific finding of the Tribunal as well as Honble High Court that the appellant had devised a scheme deliberately to evade tax liability and hence the ratio of that cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the digital signature certification services. 11. In our considered view, the adjudicating authority has correctly come to the conclusion that appellant is required to pay the amount of Rs. 51,85,498/- through PLA. 12. Since the amount is payable through PLA the interest charged on the said amount is also correctly appropriated by the authority. 13. At the same time, we find strong force in the contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel that the amount of Rs. 51,85,498/- paid by the appellant through PLA / cash is over and above the same amount which has been debited by them during the period October 2004 to September 2007 in their Cenvat Credit account. We direct the lower authorities to allow the appellant to avail Cenvat Credit of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
