9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee’s head office, which was ultimately paid by taking the shelter under the said scheme. The facts clearly leads to the conclusion that tax was not being paid during the relevant period and as such it can be concluded that there was suppression or mis-statement on the part of the assessee, thus leading to non-availability of credit to them. Applicability of Board’s Circular No. 170/5/2013-ST dated 8.8.2013 - Held that:- There is no clarification to the effect that the duty/tax paid under the said scheme would be admissible as a credit. It only clarifies that the Cenvat credit would be governed by the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 - the said rule deny availing the credit in respect of the tax/duty paid under suppression or mis-statement - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Gupta, ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S.K. Bansal, ld. AR for the Revenue, we find that there is no dispute about the fact of payment of duty by the supplier of the goods. The Revenue s only objection is that the supplier should not have paid the duty and should have availed the conditional Notification No. 22/2003-CE. However, it is seen that no such objection was raised by the Revenue at the time of acceptance of duty paid by the supplier and it is only at the appellant s end that the credit stands denied to them. The Revenue has also referred to the fact that as per the DGFT policy circular dated 15.3.2013, no refund of terminal excise duty claimed by the EOU would be granted to them thus indicating that the 100% EOU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office, in which case the credit would not be available to them. 6. We have gone through the provisions of the VCES scheme, which permits an assessee to declare his tax liabilities, which have not been discharged by them in the past. In the present case, the appellant made a declaration on 30th December 2013, in respect of the dues not paid by him during the period July 2009 to March 2012. As such the service tax, which was required to be paid by the head office from July 2009 to March 2012, was not being paid and was ultimately, by taking the benefit of the said scheme, was declared on 30.12.2013. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that there was suppression or mis-statement by way of non-payment of tax on the part of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Belapur 2018 (3) TMI 1420 CESTAT Mumbai, wherein the credit of service tax paid under VCES was allowed to the assessee. On carefully going through the said decision of the Tribunal, we note that the Revenue in that case had not challenged the admissibility of credit and the only ground for denial was that the same was availed on the basis of discharge certificate which cannot be considered to be an admissible document in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Inasmuch as in that case there was no challenge to the admissibility of Cenvat credit, by the Revenue, the Tribunal never went to the said question, which was neither discussed nor addressed. As such, we hold that the said decision is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
