9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit of service tax paid on various services such as management, maintenance or repair service, commercial training and coaching service, etc. During the audit of the appellants records, the audit made an observation that the appellants had to maintain separate accounts in respect of services utilized for information technology service and other services. Considering information technology service as an exempted services and because of non-maintenance of separate accounts, appellants became eligible to utilize only 20% of the CENVAT credit available for payment of service tax on the output services. Since the appellants utilized more than 20% during the relevant period, proceedings were initiated by issuing show cause notice for demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to them but a show cause notice was issued straight away and after the adjudication order was passed, the appellants decided that having regard to the size of their company, the amount involved was small and not worth litigating further and therefore they would limit the litigation only to penalty and CENVAT credit amount with interest would be paid by them. Accordingly they deposited the entire amount of CENVAT credit demanded with interest and also paid 25% of the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994. He submits that even though the appellants have a case on merits, they have taken a policy decision not to litigate and he seeks only waiver of penalty imposed on the appellant. 3. Learned AR would submit that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records maintained by the assessee or not. There is also no reason given as to why the Chartered Accountant s certificate is not acceptable. While the paragraph is very detailed, on the most important aspect as to why the submissions and the Chartered Accountant s certificate are not acceptable, the order is silent. In the same manner, the Commissioner (Appeals) also has taken a view that appellants have not maintained separate accounts and have not filed declaration in ST-3 returns. On going through the records, I find that once the assessee made a claim that they had maintained separate accounts, just because there was an audit report stating that separate accounts were not maintained, in the absence of any statement or letter or any do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween the correct amount determined as per the condition (c) of the Rule and correct amount paid as per condition (b), the manufacturer has to pay this before 30th June of the succeeding financial year. This also shows that this has nothing to do with ST-3 returns. Further, according to condition (g), the provider of output service is required to intimate the Superintendent of Central Excise of the jurisdiction within 15 days from the date of payment or adjustment certain details as mentioned therein. An analysis of Rule 3(a) would show that it is a detailed procedure separate from ST-3 returns and other applications which are required under other rules. Therefore the observations of both the lower authorities on categorical declarations in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
