9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h this Appeal. We find force in the contention of the Appellant that once the Service Tax has been discharged by the recipient of service, demand of Service Tax from the Appellant again will amount to double taxation which is not permissible under law. The case laws relied upon by the Appellant and the CBEC Circular dated 17.12.2004 are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. We also observe that the Appellants have been filing regular ST-3 Returns and maintaining the statutory records relating to payment of Service Tax wherein all the transactions were duly recorded. There is no allegation that any transaction was found beyond the mandatory records maintained by the Appellant. It is also an admitted fact that the Appellants are an autonomous body under Government of India, Ministry of MSME. We considered view that the extended period of limitation is not applicable in the instant case. My opinion on limitation also gets support from the decision of Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-1 [ 2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] there is no question of payment of interest and the same are set aside. The penalty imposed is also set aside. - HON BLE MR. P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax Rules, 1994 or in the relevant Notification issued by the Government from time to time. It has been further alleged that the statutory liability of service provider cannot be shifted on service recipient by mutual agreement until and unless the provisions of law allow doing so. 7. A SCN C. No.151/ST/IAR/GR. V/CIR.-II/2018/1102 dated 28.10.2020 was issued to the Appellant answerable to the Assistant Commissioner, Audit Circle-II, Central Tax and Central Excise, Audit Commissionerate, Kanpur wherein CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.27,49,185/- was proposed to be demanded and recovered under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith interest and proposal to impose penalty under Rule 15 of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 8. The Appellant filed a detailed written reply with all the relevant enclosures. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST Central Excise, Audit Commissionerate Circle-II, Kanpur disallowed the CENVAT Credit of Rs.27,49,185/- under Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 alongwith the interest payable under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 as made applicable vide Section 174 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, that the Appellants are an autonomous body under Government of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME). It has also been admitted in the SCN that service provided by Government by way of support services excluding renting of immovable property and services specified in Sub-clause (i) i.e. postal services, (ii) i.e. services in relation to an aircraft or a vessel, and (iii) i.e. transport of goods or passengers of Clause (a) of Section 66D of Finance Act, 1994 are notified under Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994. 14. It was also pointed out in this respect that the word support services were omitted from the Notification w.e.f. 01.04.2016 by virtue of Notification No.18/2016-ST, dated 01.03.2016. Thus, all the services provided or agreed to be provided by Government or local authority except renting of immovable property and services specified in Sub-clause (i) (i.e., postal services), (ii) (i.e., services in relation to an aircraft or a vessel), and (iii) (i.e., transport of goods or passengers) are covered under RCM. 15. As regards services rendered during 2015-16, service of T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itation cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 20. Ms. Stuti Saggi, Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is an autonomous body of Government of India under Ministry of MSME and they are engaged in providing various taxable services including Technical Testing Analysis Service which is covered under the definition of support service and as such the Service Tax was paid by the recipient under RCM as per Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended from time to time. The demand herein made shall amount to double taxation. She also submitted that the complete details of Service Tax paid by service recipient under RCM and respective challans have been filed with the Appeal. She also strongly contested that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand is barred by limitation as extended period of limitation is not applicable in as much as the Appellants are Governmental Authority and there cannot be any malice on the part of the Appellants. She also relied on many case laws as cited in the Appeal. 21. On the contrary, Shri Manish Raj, Authorized Representative submitted that the Appellants have availed inadmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have neither availed nor utilized any CENVAT Credit in respect of Technical Testing and Analysis Service . I also observe that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has in his observation admitted that the Appellants have received the payment of value of taxable services only after deducting TDS and that no payment of Service Tax was received by the Appellants. This fact also envisage that the burden of Service Tax was borne by the recipient of service. 27. I find from the facts and documents on record that it is not disputed that the service recipient namely, M/s. MCX Sohan Lal Commodity Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi have in fact paid the Service Tax on Technical testing Analysis Service received by them from the Appellants. The Challans evidencing payment of such tax were submitted before the Adjudicating Authority below and again annexed with this Appeal. I find force in the contention of the Appellant that once the Service Tax has been discharged by the recipient of service, demand of Service Tax from the Appellant again will amount to double taxation which is not permissible under law. The case laws relied upon by the Appellant and the CBEC Circular dated 17.12.2004 are applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
