9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus, respondent was not liable to pay service tax and secondly having paid it, the assessee is entitled to get cenvat credit and the assessee has rightly availed the cenvat credit. Extended period cannot be invoked as there is no suppression with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the assessee – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. - E/1668/2010-SM - Final Order No. 20637/ 2016 - Dated:- 17-8-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Appellant Shri Anand N. Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner who set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. The only question to be decided by me in this appeal is whether the assessee has availed cenvat credit wrongly as alleged in the show-cause notice and whether the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee was not liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism until the introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act 1994. It is undisputed that service tax was paid for input services on reverse charge meth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular cenvat credit. This argument has no force as the learned Commissioner in para 20 of the impugned order has given valid reasons for not invoking the extended period. Para 20 of the impugned order of the Commissioner is reproduced herein below: 20. As discussed at Paras 17 and 18 above there was no legal obligation for the appellants to pay service tax on the impugned services in the first instance. Even then they had paid the service tax mistakenly due to the conflicting stands being taken by various fora at that point of time. Subsequently they had taken credit of the same, again due to not proper understanding of the legal provisions. Hence it would be far fetched to conclude that the appellants had even an iota of intent to evad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
