9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity pointed out by the Department has already been met by the appellant when they filed the service tax return on 03.12.2021, wherein, they have already availed and utilised the credit admissible to them. It is further found that though it is an admitted position that the ST-3 returns have been filed, it is not clear whether any dispute has been raised by the Department against such filed ST-3 returns or any separate action has been initiated for denying the benefit of credit claimed in the said ST-3 returns by the appellant. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue of non-entitlement of credit in a rather cryptic manner by merely reiterating the grounds taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority. It is observed that in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. 2. The issue in brief is that the appellants were providing taxable service and had not discharged correct service tax liability to the tune of Rs. 13,63,591/- by suppressing the gross value of Rs. 90,90,609/-, which was not declared in their statutory ST-3 returns during the financial year 2016- 17 and 2017-18 (First Quarter). Therefore, show cause notice was issued by the Department for recovery of service tax amount of Rs. 13,63,591/- which was based on differential value declared in ST-3 returns (which were not filed) with value declared to the Income Tax Authority under ITR. The show cause notice was issued invoking extended period and also proposed for penalty under Section 78 and other provisions. 3. On adjudication, their mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they have screen shots which would indicate that they had tried to file their ST returns in time. However, one being made aware of service tax liability on account of difference, they had filed service tax returns as well as discharged the duty liability, utilising Cenvat Credit available to them. He further states that these credits were duly recorded in their books of accounts during the relevant time in support of which they had furnished ledger also in support of that these invoices were genuinely issued and received by them. Therefore, despite this, invocation of extended period is bad in law. On the second point that the liability pointed by the Department has already been discharged by them by way of filing of service tax returns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch filed ST-3 returns or any separate action has been initiated for denying the benefit of credit claimed in the said ST-3 returns by the appellant. I further find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue of non-entitlement of credit in a rather cryptic manner by merely reiterating the grounds taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority. He has not independently examined various case laws and the facts which were advanced by the appellant in support of their being eligible to take those credit. Relevant portion of impugned order is cited below for ease of reference: 6. Further on perusal of the records it is observed that they had availed the credit on Inputs and Capital Goods for which they have not produced any valid evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
