TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce value was due to negotiations and revised invoices were raised - the demand of ₹ 1,40,397/- confirmed is not tenable in law and is set aside. Availment of CENVAT credit of ₹ 48,717/- paid as rent and telephone bills - HELD THAT:- In the SCN, it is not disputed that the input services are in relation to rendering output service and hence input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Further, the payment made in respect of service received and consumed as service provider and further output services are not exempted from tax and Service Tax is payable on output services therefore there is no dispute with regard to the receipt of services as utilized for output service and as per provision of Rule 4(7) of CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the entire demand raised in the SCN is time barred - further extended period cannot be invoked because the appellant has disclosed all the receipts in the ST-3 Returns and there is no suppression on the part of the appellant to evade the Service Tax. Appeal allowed on merits as well as on limitation. - ST/20125/2019-SM - Final Order No.20617/2019 - Dated:- 6-8-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. Dayanand, CA For the Respondent : Dr. J.Harish, Joint Commissioner, AR ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submitted that short payment of Service Tax of ₹ 1,40,397/- was due to downward revision of work contract and adjusted the same towards payment of Service Tax in September 2013 and enclosed a certificate from service receivers in this regard. He further submitted that the excess adjustment of CENVAT credit was clearly disclosed in ST-3 Returns for the period April 2013 to September 2013 and therefore, the demand is time barred. He also submitted that the CENVAT credit of ₹ 48,717/- was availed on rent paid for their premises at Bangalore from where output services have been rendered and the same was declared in the ST-3 Returns. He further submitted that as per Rule 2(l), input services which are directly utilized for provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (307) ELT 484 (Guj.)] wherein it has been held that if the impugned order is beyond the SCN then the same is liable to be set aside. Further, I find that the appellants have also produced the certificate from the service receiver who has certified that original bills were revised and they have paid the Service Tax on revised invoice. Further, I find that the appellant has also produced the certificate of Chartered Accountant for the revision of invoices of the service receiver and accordingly I hold that reduction in invoice value was due to negotiations and revised invoices were raised. Therefore, the demand of ₹ 1,40,397/- confirmed is not tenable in law and therefore I set aside the same. As far as availment of CENVAT credit of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt made to the service provider. Further, the appellant has also produced Chartered Accountant certificate for proof of availment of CENVAT credit in the input ledger credit and payment made to the service provider. Further, the appellant has recorded the payment in the input credit ledger and bank statements also showing the payment of Service Tax of ₹ 1,77,839/-. Therefore the denial of the CENVAT credit only on the ground that the name of service recipient is not mentioned in the invoice is not sustainable in law when all other details which are required as per Rule 9 are present. As far as invoking the extended period is concerned, I find that the period covered in the SCN is 4/2013 to 3/2015 and the SCN was issued on 30.12.2016 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
