9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking credit under Rule 9 (I) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - levy of penalty u/s 78 of FA. HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority found that there is no need to dispute input service credit and therefore, there cannot be any requirement to take registration as Input Service Distributor . More importantly, the Tribunal noted that the bank is a nationalized bank and a Government of India Undertaking and therefore, there cannot be any malafide intention to evade payment of duty. Moreover, the respondent bank is registered with the Service tax Department and is paying service tax on the various services provided by them. They have always paid the taxes as and when applicable on time and all the returns have been filed on time and all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HON BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Appearance : For the Appellant: Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Ekta Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent: Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siva Kumar G., Adv. The Court : There is a delay of 366 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. As we are required to see whether any substantial question of law arises for consideration, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The condone delay petition (GA/1/2024) is allowed. 3. The instant appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Branch, Kolkata (Tribunal) in Service Tax Appeal No.282 of 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing for the appellant/revenue and Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee. 7. The revenue was aggrieved by the order passed by the adjudicating authority dropping the proposal in the show-cause notice which was issued to the respondent bank after considering the reply given by the respondent. The learned Tribunal has elaborately examined the factual position and concurred with the decision taken by the adjudicating authority in dropping the proposal in the show cause notice. It was factually found that the allegation in the draft show cause notice that the assessee had taken Cenvat credit on the basis of internal statements called D-2 furnished by their different zonal officials on the basis of estimation was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty has to be imposed under Section 78 of the Act. Noting the said provision, the Tribunal found that there was no allegation of any non-levy or non-payment or short-levy or short-payment and/or erroneous refund of service tax and none of the activities of the respondent/assessee is hit by any of the clauses (a) to (e) of Section 78 of the Act. Thus, on facts the Tribunal was satisfied that the finding rendered by the adjudicating authority was categorical and the same does not call for interference. 9. Thus, the matter being entirely factual, we are of the view that there is no question of law, much less substantial questions of law, arises for consideration and hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 10. Consequently, the stay appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
