Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1198 - CESTAT, NEW DELHICENVAT Credit - manufacture of white cement and white cement putty - input services - consultancy services received in respect of feasibility studies for cement plant at Oman - reverse charge mechanism - extended period of limitation - the Revenue has invoked the longer period of limitation by simplicitor observing that the appellant has not disclosed the nature of the service in respect of which credit was availed - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the returns filed by the appellant only shows the total amount of credit by which it cannot be inferred that credit of certain inadmissible input services was availed - there are no justification in the stand of the lower authorities. Admittedly, the credit was duly reflected in the returns, which were filed with the Revenue. In the absence of any column in returns requiring the nature of the input or input services, the non-disclosure of the same cannot attribute any mala fide to the assessee. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prolite Engineering Co. v. Union of India [1990 (3) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT] has observed that non-disclosure of information, which is not required to be disclosed or recorded by statutory provisions or prescribed proforma does not amount to suppression or concealment - By applying the ratio, the demand is held to be barred by limitation. Demand of interest and penalty under Rule 76 - HELD THAT:- It stands observed by Commissioner (Appeals) that the notice proposed confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties by adopting the due date on the basis of the date of the invoices whereas the service tax liability was discharged on the basis of actual payment date, which is subsequent to the raising of the invoices. As such, he has held that the service tax liability for interest and imposition of penalties is not called for - Revenue in their memo of appeal have not disputed or rebutted the above finding of fact by Commissioner (Appeals) and have simplicitor, in a mechanical way, reiterated that interest and penalty are required to confirmed and imposed. In the absence of any rebuttal to the finding that the tax was discharged within time by taking the actual payment date as the relevant date, there are no reasons to interfere in the said part of the impugned order. Decided in favor of assessee.
|