9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty imposed under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 [The Finance Act] but upholding the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act. Insofar as the appellant's contention before Commissioner (Appeals) that it had availed CENVAT credit of only Rs. 8,33,550/- and not Rs. 9,46,836/- was concerned, he directed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to examine this factual submission. 2. This appeal was listed on several dates and on 10.12.2024 the following order was passed: "None is present for the appellant. It is perused that ample opportunities have already been given to the appellant to file the written synopsis and to make the final submissions. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is given with the clarifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid or payable as is indicated in invoice, bill or, as the case may be challans referred to in rule 9. "Provided that while paying duty of Excise or Service Tax as the case may be the CENVAT Credit shall be utilized only to the extent such credit is available on the last day of the month or quarter, as the case may be for payment of duty or tax relating to that month or the quarter as the case may be." 5. It was felt during audit that the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of Rs. 9,46,363/- without paying its sub-contractor and thereby it had violated Rule 4(7) of CCR. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2010 was issued to the appellant covering the period 2005-06 to 2008-09 (up to December 2008) invoking the extended period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, it had wrongly concluded that appellant had availed CENVAT credit without making the payment. In fact, it had made all the payments. (iv) The entire period of demand up to December 2008 was beyond the normal period of limitation. As the appellant had been filing its returns regularly there was no ground to invoke extended period of limitation. (v) The ground for imposing penalty under section 78 is the same as the ground for invoking extended period of limitation and, therefore, same is also not sustainable. (vi) In view of the above, the entire demand may be set aside and the impugned order also set aside and the appellant's appeal may be allowed. Submissions of the Revenue 9. Learned authorized representative appearing for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with intent to evade payment of Service Tax, hence; appears liable for penal action under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Interest is also recoverable from them under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the service tax short paid." 12. It is undisputed that the appellant was registered with the service tax department and was filing returns regularly. The only reason for invoking extended period of limitation is that the audit had discovered that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit without first paying its sub-contractor. We find that the service tax Returns need to be scrutinized by the Range Officer. Had the Range Officer done so the alleged ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
