9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant had never voluntarily disclosed its modus operandi adopted to the Department. Since the Department gathered the information upon investigation into the matter, the show cause proceedings initiated by the Department will not be hit by the bar of limitation. Penalties u/s 76 and 78 - Held that: - Since penalties cannot be imposed simultaneously under the said statutory provisions, the penalty imposed under Section 76 has to be set aside - Since the entire disputed amount of Cenvat Credit was reversed before issuance of show cause notice and the appellant had reflected the transactions in the ST-3 returns, as per the amended provisions of Section 78 of the Act, the penalty should be reduced to 50% of the quantum of penalty confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the head office (Unit-I) had no balance in its Cenvat account, it cannot pay Service Tax from the said account and is required to pay the same in cash. Accordingly, it was held that the appellant had short paid Service Tax amount of ₹ 4,12,058/-. Subsequently, the appellant had deposited such amount vide challan dated 05.02.2015. The Department initiated Show cause proceedings against the appellant, seeking for recovery of the amount short paid by the appellant alongwith interest and for imposition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated against the appellant, wherein the Service Tax amount of ₹ 4,12,055/- was confirmed alongwith interest and the amount deposited by the appellant was appropriated into the Government account. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erification of ST-3 Returns, had issued the show cause notice to the appellant within time, the same cannot be held as barred by limitation of time. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. It is an admitted fact on record that at the time of debit in the cenvat account for an amount of ₹ 4,12,058/-, the appellant herein (Unit-I) had no balance in its cenvat account and such amount was deposited by it on 05.02.2015. Thus, I am of the view that proceedings initiated against the appellant for recovery of the wrongly availed /utilized cenvat credit by the authorities below is proper and justified. Since the appellant had deposited such amount subsequently, it is liable to pay interest for the days of delay in payment / rever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
