Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2022 (7) TMI 719 - HC - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - common inputs used of providing both taxable and exempted service - failure to maintain separate account as required under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - failure to exercise option as stipulated under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - requirement of proportionate Cenvat Credit in respect of trading activity which is exempted in terms of Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - There is no specific allegation against the assessee of any deliberate suppression or misstatement with an intent to evade taxes - on examination of the allegations in the show cause notice it is found that there is no specific allegation or prima facie finding of any wilful misstatement or suppression on the part of the assessee. That apart the details have been culled out by the adjudicating authority from the available records and there is no new or fresh tangible materials available in the hands of the adjudicating authority to make out a case of wilful misstatement or wilful suppression. Therefore the tribunal was fully justified in holding that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. What is important to note is that the amount of legible Cenvat credit to the assessee was Rs.41, 17, 269/- whereas the demand which was impugned before the tribunal fastened a liability of Rs.3, 29, 07, 268/- which is not legally sustainable. The substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|