9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Audit objection was raised on the basis of the annual accounts or report, a copy of which was available at the Bhiwadi Unit and the said audit objection was raised as per the balance sheet and Director report, etc. Further, the provisions of Central Excise and Service Tax Act Rules thereunder do not provide for multiplicity of the proceedings. The ld. Commissioner has rightly dropped the demand and erred in upholding the part of the show cause notice and also erred in objecting the part of the show cause notice relating to the suo moto taking of the re-credit by the appellant - this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only as the main issue having been held against the appellant/assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No.941/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance from India. 3. The appellant did not pay any service tax being under the belief that the service s have been received and consumed outside India. As such, they are not liable to pay service tax under the provisions of Section 66 A of the Finance Act under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Pursuant to the Audit in their factory office on 15.07.2018 and 19.07.2018, on the basis of the Annual Report for the financial year 2006-2007, the objection was raised that the service tax was required to be paid on the services received from foreign based providers with respect to the finance arranged as aforementioned. The appellant debited the amount of ₹ 47,83,744/- as pointed out by the Audit on 22.09.2008. However, on advice of their Consultan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and accordingly, he held that the said suo moto credit is bad and ordered for recovery of the same and further imposed penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Rule 5(1) of CCR, 2004. 6. Sofar as the show cause notice issued by the Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-I is concerned, the said issue came up before the Division Bench of this Tribunal in ST Appeal No.60498 of 2013. Vide Final Order No.52925/2018 dated 10.09.2018, the Division Bench has held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism. The relevant operative paragraph 5 and 6 are given hereinbelow for ready reference:- 5. We have heard both the sides and have perused the record of appeal. It is a matter of record that the appellant assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is barred by limitation, in view of the fact that there was certain correspondence with the department in 2007 and as the show cause notice has been issued in April, 2010 by Central Excise Service tax Commissionerate, Jaipur. In this regard, it is a matter of fact that the assessee is individually registered with various Commissionerates of Central Excise and Service tax and every Commissionerate / Directorate perform its designated function with the mandate given by Government of India to them within their respective jurisdictions. And more often than not, they are not concerned with the activities undertaken by other Commissionerate or Directorates. In view of this, we are of view that it cannot be inferred that since a particular ST/60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a responsibility on the service ST/60498/2013 7 provider to pay service tax. In this case, even when the assessee has become aware that in July, 2007 itself that there may be certain legal issues regarding service tax liability on the services availed by them from abroad, however, we find that they have not stirred themselves to final take certain conclusive steps, in making compliance of service tax law. We find that there are valid grounds with the department to invoke the extended time proviso under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. 7. The issue before me is whether the part of the cause of action, with regard to suo moto re-credit taken by the appellant and the show cause notice issued by the Jaipur Commissionerate survives, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s maintained at Bhiwadi factory office. The Audit objection was raised on the basis of the annual accounts or report, a copy of which was available at the Bhiwadi Unit and the said audit objection was raised as per the balance sheet and Director report, etc. Further, the provisions of Central Excise and Service Tax Act Rules thereunder do not provide for multiplicity of the proceedings. I hold that the ld. Commissioner has rightly dropped the demand and erred in upholding the part of the show cause notice and also erred in objecting the part of the show cause notice relating to the suo moto taking of the re-credit by the appellant. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of the Commissioner, Jaipur and hold that the issue does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
