9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Rule 6(3)(c) of CCR 2004 - extended period of limitation - Held that: - appellant contention that the demand being raised invoking extended period cannot sustain for the reason that there was no suppression of facts - when availing the credit, the appellant ought to have taken of the fact that they are availing credit on common input services for both taxable as well as non-taxable service - penalty set aside. The impugned order is set aside to the extent of setting aside the penalties on all the three issues without disturbing the demand of service tax or interest thereon - appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. ST/531/2010 - Final Order No. 41511 / 2018 - Dated:- 18-5-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch commission would be taxable only if the person is engaged as an insurance agent. She pleaded that the penalty therefore may be set aside. 2.2 With regard to third issue, she submitted that the appellant did not avail credit on exempted service as alleged by the department but had availed credit on common inputs used for taxable as well as non-taxable services. Since the issue whether the credit availed on common inputs for exempted services as well as trading activities (non-taxable service) was contentious for a long time, she pleaded that being an interpretational issue, there was no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant and that the extended period cannot be invoked. 3. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 6(3)(c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, appellants being provider of output service ought to have utilized only 20% of the credit availed on common input services. The appellant having availed credit both on taxable as well as non-taxable services are not eligible to utilize the credit exceeding 20% of the amount of service tax payable on taxable output service. The appellant has made submission that the demand being raised invoking extended period cannot sustain for the reason that there was no suppression of facts. We are not able to accept this contention for the reason that when availing the credit, the appellant ought to have taken of the fact that they are availing credit on common input services for both taxable as well as non-taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
