Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 111 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - suppression of facts - whether the appellant had availed inadmissible credit of ₹ 16,27,181/- during the period 2006-2007 to 2009-2010, by suppressing and/or mis-declaration of facts? - extended period of limitation - Held that: - even though they have availed credit against various input services, namely, jetty charges, wharfage charges etc., but the same was mentioned under the category of 'input'. Needless to mention inputs and input services are separate categories under which cenvat credit is admissible under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. No plausible and convincing explanation has been furnished in this regard. Cumulatively, considering all these facts, there cannot be any doubt that to escape from the notice of the department, the appellant had taken credit of the service tax paid on various input services, but intentionally the declared it under the heading input in the relevant ST-3 returns. Therefore, the inadmissible credit has been availed by mis-declaration of facts, hence, recoverable from them with interest. As far as carrying out audit on the records and no discrepancies was noticed by the Department, therefore larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. No evidence has been brought on record to show that the visiting audit party had been specifically made aware of the fact of availing of credit on input services which were used in providing trading activity of imported goods. Therefore, the authorities below had rightly confirmed the demand invoking larger period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|