9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government being an autonomous body and is registered with the service tax department under various categories of services provided by them as per the Finance Act, 1994 the Act. During the course of audit of the records of the appellant, it was observed that they had provided construction of residential complex services to its customers and for that they had received services from various contractors under Work Contract Service WCS . The appellant is paying service tax on contract service under Reverse Charge Mechanism RCM through GAR-7 Challan and utilising the above input credit made available to them on the basis of GAR- 7 Challan for discharging the service tax liability under construction of residential complex service, which is admiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty as it being a government authority cannot be said to be indulging in suppression or misrepresentation of facts and figures. He submitted that the entire period in dispute is time barred. 5. In this regard, the submission of the learned AR is that the appellant had not disclosed the wrong availment of Cenvat Credit and the same came to the knowledge of the department only during the course of audit of the records of the assessee as per IAR No. 179/2018-19 dated 20.12 .2018 and if the audit had not been conducted, the said facts would have gone unnoticed by the department. 6. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, I may consider the preliminary issue of inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to wrongly avail Cenvat credit. As per the provisions of the Finance Act, the liability of the appellant was to file the STRs within the stipulated time disclosing the true facts and it is not the case of the revenue that they had not filed the STRs or had not disclosed the availment of Cenvat Credit. Hence, it is not a case of wilful suppression of material facts. 9. It is a settled principle of law that for invoking the extended period of limitation, the ingredients specified in the provisions as contained in proviso to section 73 (1) needs to be satisfied by the revenue, which I find are absent in the present case. There is no averment in the show cause notice with reference to the factual matrix of the instant case, satisfying the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e operation of the proviso, the intention to deliberately default is a mandatory prerequisite." Even if we hold that there was an error on the part of the appellant in availing the credit, however the error was inadvertent as they were registered only in the month of September 2013 and therefore, the extended period invoked by the department is not justified. The principle enunciated in various decisions is that the proviso to section 73 (1) would be applicable on account of misstatement or suppression of facts only if the same was deliberate and for the purpose of evading payment of duty, Bharat Hotels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.) 2018 (12) GSTL 368 (Del.). 12. The learned AR has relied on the decision of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
