9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviding services under the category of Information Technology Software Services. During the course of audit conducted on the records of the appellant covering the period from April 2011 to March 2015, it was observed that the appellant had wrongly availed service tax credit on services not used for providing output service as detailed in the table below :- Period involved CENVAT Credit availed on input Amount April 2014 to March 2015 Vending Machine, Pooja expenses, supply of plants, garden maintenance and parking fee 1,53,256/- March 2015 Civil interior works and electrical works undertaken to their office building 17,78,385/- April to June 2015 Civil interior works and electrical works of their office building 26,82,094/- &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviding output service during the relevant period would have gone unnoticed." The learned counsel further submitted that during the audit itself, the appellant accepted the objection of the audit party and the cenvat credit on disputed services was duly reversed. She further submitted that Department was not able to bring any material on record showing that the appellant has suppressed the material with intent to evade the tax. She further submitted that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of YCH Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE,Cus.&ST, Bangalore-I [2020(43) GSTL 518 (Tri. Bang.)] has dropped the penalty under Sections 77 and 78 on identical facts. She submitted that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bengaluru V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case, we find that the contention of the appellant that they bonafidely believed that they are not liable to pay service tax but when the audit party raised the objection that they are liable to pay service tax, then they immediately paid the service tax along with interest which is admitted in the impugned order, is justified. Further except mere allegation of suppression, the Department did not bring any material to prove that there was suppression and concealment of facts to evade payment of tax. Consequently, in our considered view, the imposition of penalty under Section 77 & 78 is not justified and bad in law. Hence, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant by allowing the appeal of the appellant. 7. Further I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
