|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 54 Records
-
2020 (10) TMI 1270
Seeking direction to issue Electric Discharge Certificate - Sabka Vishwas Dispute Resolution Scheme - HELD THAT:- Liberty granted to the petitioner to move a representation before the respondent no. 2 enclosing copy of the judgment in MESSRS SYNPOL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (9) TMI 257 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and other relevant documents within a period of ten days from today. In case, the petitioner moves a representation, the same shall be considered by the respondent no. 2 and proper order may be passed thereafter after hearing the petitioner within two weeks.
Put up this case as a fresh case on 19.11.2020.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1267
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection of the scheme on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to apply under the scheme - Section 125(1)(e) of the Finance(No.2) Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- There are two provisions, namely, Section 128 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 and Rule 6(6) of the Scheme Rules that enable the designated committee to modify its order after issuance of statement under Section 127 of the Act.
The designated authority can revisit the issue after issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 only in the circumstances set out in Section 128 r/w.Rule 6(6). If during the verification process contemplated by Rule 6, if the designated committee finds that the applicant is not eligible to make a declaration under Section 125 of the Act, the declaration ought to be returned or rejected at that stage itself. Having moved to the next stage, the designated committee cannot retrace its steps. The designated committee is a creature of statute. It came into existence by virtue of the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019. If the impugned order is sustained, it would mean that the designated committee has been conferred with absolute power of review, when what has been conferred is only limited power of review, namely, the power to correct the arithmetical or clerical error. It cannot revisit the issue on merits, having once made the determination under Section 127(4) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 r/w. Rule 6 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme Rules, 2019.
Thus, the designated committee did not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned order - first respondent is directed to issue Discharge Certificate as sought for within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1263
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Levy of service tax - royalty and allied charges paid by the petitioner on the minerals extracted by virtue of granting of mining lease by the Government - HELD THAT:- If the order impugned is appealable, we relegate the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. At this point of time, Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has no objection to approach the appropriate forum under the provisions of law, but the pre-condition of entertaining the appeal is to deposit 75% of the demanded amount, which will cause prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1135
Principles of Natural Justice - Rejection of application filed under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - rejection of application without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had conveyed to all the departmental heads that the scheme is a bold endeavour to unload the baggage relating to the legacy taxes, namely, central excise and service tax which have been subsumed under GST and to allow business to make a new beginning and to focus entirely on GST. It was emphasized that all officers and staff should partner with trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success. It was highlighted that dispute resolution and amnesty are the two components of this scheme. The dispute resolution component is aimed at liquidating the legacy cases whereas the amnesty component gives an opportunity to those who have failed to correctly discharge their tax liability to pay the tax dues.
On the one hand there is a letter of respondent No.3 to the petitioner quantifying the service tax liability for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 at ₹ 47,44,937.00 which quantification is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019 and on the other hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of ₹ 10,74,011.00 which again is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. Thus, petitioner’s tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 - there are no hesitation to hold that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019.
Though the scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand, the primary focus as succinctly put across by the Hon’ble Finance Minister in her budget speech is to unload the baggage of pending litigations in respect of service tax and central excise from pre-GST regime so that the business can move on. This was also the view expressed by the Board in the circular dated 27th August, 2019 wherein all the officers and staff working under the Board were called upon to partner with trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success which in turn will enable the administrative machinery to fully focus in the smooth implementation of GST. This is the broad picture which the officials must have in mind while considering an application (declaration) seeking amnesty under the scheme.
The rejection of the application (declaration) of the Petitioner under the scheme communicated vide email dated 27th January, 2020 is not justified - petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1107
Liability of Service Tax - business of providing washing and cleaning bedrolls and linen - non-receipt of payment of the amount of tax from the recipient of the services - non-compliance with the statutory provisions or not - maintainability of appeal under Section 85 of the Act, challenging the order(s) of the appropriate authority constituted under the Act - HELD THAT:- Language of the statute is simple, clear and unambiguous. The service provider, so defined, is mandatorily required to register and make payment of component of tax with receipt to the services so rendered. The Act does not stipulate payment only on receipt thereof - petitioner has not registered itself under the statute; nor paid any tax.
The order passed was after affording an opportunity of filing response; all contentions allowed to be raised, considered and dealt with; fair opportunity of hearing afforded; reasons for assessing the liability stands assigned; statutory provisions correctly appreciated and applied to the attending facts and circumstances. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. There is no misconstruction or misappreciation of fact or misapplication of the law - Petitioner has been providing service to the Government authority. The service does not fall within the specified services contained in the negative list. The amount received from the Railway Authorities is not in dispute, and the incidence of taxation stands correctly determined.
The defence taken by the petitioner of persuading the service recipient to pay the amount or having initiated proceedings seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for settlement of disputes rightly stands rejected by the Assessing Authority, for compliance of the statutory provisions are not subject to or dependent upon the contractual terms governing the parties - Arbitral proceedings would only determine obligations inter se the parties to the agreement and not the liability or factum of compliance of statutory provisions.
The statute mandates timely payment of component of tax. There is no provision for deferment, either till the time of its receipt or payment only subject to that. Hence, the contentions raised by the learned counsel at the time of the hearing, being untenable stands rejected.
The liability to pay the tax in terms of Chapter V and VA of the Finance Act, 1994 rests solely upon the petitioner, being the service provider - Such liability cannot be deferred. It is not subject to receipt of any amount, be it a tax or otherwise, from the service recipient - Failure on the part of the service recipient to pay the amount under the service provider agreement cannot be a reason sufficient enough for non-compliance of the statutory provisions by the service provider. Equally, it also cannot be set up as a defence in the adjudicatory proceedings - The Act provides for a complete mechanism for adjudication of all issues of fact or law before different forums.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1066
Application for withdrawal of application - benefit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 availed - HELD THAT:- In view of the Scheme having been availed by the Assessee, the Appeals arising out of the Order passed by the learned Tribunal and the subsequent order dated 8.8.212 passed on the Application for Rectification are dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1065
Construction Services - full amount received towards provision of services - N/N. 1/2006 -ST dated 01.03.2006 - benefit denied on the ground that Cenvat credit was availed under N/N. 15/2004 dated 10.09.2004, in the month of March 2006 - construction of residential complexes - period from 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2007 - Time Limitation.
Whether the demand of service tax of ₹ 1,03,22,449, on the full amount received towards provision of services, is justified denying the benefit of notification 1/2006 -ST dated 01.03.2006 claimed, on the ground that Cenvat credit was availed under Notification 15/2004 dated 10.09.2004, in the month of March 2006? - HELD THAT:- The contention of the appellant is not correct because the Notification No.15/2004 dated 10.09.2004 automatically gets nullified after the introduction of notification No.01/2006 dated 01.03.2006; therefore the question of availment of notification no.15/2004 and notification no 01/2006 for the month of March 2006 does not arise; even though the cenvat credit pertained to the period only upto 28.02.2006 the same is not eligible for utilization for the month of March 2006 and onwards. Whereas the appellant submits that the restriction in taking cenvat credit of service tax on input services has commenced only from 01.03.2006; from this date onwards the appellant is barred from taking cenvat credit of service tax on input services; cenvat credit, availed, on input services under the provisions of Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 till 28.02.2006 does not lapse; the appellant is permitted by Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to utilize such cenvat credit; Rule (4)(e) allows the appellant to utilize the cenvat credit so taken for payment of service tax on any output service.
The issue is no longer res integra; there is no provision under Notifications 1/2006 or 15/2004 that such credit legally availed prior to 1.3.2006, under the provisions of CCR,2004, would lapse. Therefore, the appellants are eligible to utilise the cenvat credit, availed by them, on inputs/input services, prior to 1.3.2006. we find that to that extent demand is not sustainable.
Whether the Appellant is a service provider rendering services of "construction of residential complexes", in terms of Section 65 (30) (a) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65 (105) (zzzh)ibid and as to whether, the demand of Service Tax of ₹ 6,79,14,900 for the period from 16.06.2005 to 30.09.2007 against the appellants is tenable? - HELD THAT:- The learned adjudicating authority has relied heavily on the fact that the agreement is a tripartiate agreement; the appellants are rendering service to the ultimate buyers of the flats; suitable advances were taken from the customers, therefore, the appellants cannot be held to be developers doing service to themselves as explained in Board Circular No.108/02/2009 dated 29.1.2009 and to that extent the Circular is not applicable in their case - what is to be seen is whether the contract was a service contract simplicitor or a works contract. Learned Commissioner had no occasion to follow the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] - Going by the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the contracts are composite contracts and therefore, not leviable to service tax before 1.6.2007. The show-cause notice proposes to demand service tax on construction of residential complexes service after 1.6.2007, even though they are works contracts being composite in nature.
Whether the show cause Notice is time barred? - HELD THAT:- The show-cause notice proposes to demand service tax on construction of residential complexes service after 1.6.2007, even though they are works contracts being composite in nature. Therefore, service tax demand after 1.6.2007 also cannot be confirmed - Learned advocate for the appellants has also raised the issue of limitation and submits that the facts are known to the Department when the audit was conducted in 2007 and therefore, the show-cause notice is time barred.
Appeal allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1064
Delay in filing of appeal - Proof of delivery of adjudication order - 100% EOU – STPI - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - input services used for providing the output services exported during the period October 2009 to March 2010 - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- As per the respondent, the Order-in-Original dt. 29/02/2012 was issued on 09/03/2012 and the appellant has filed the appeal before the Commissioner on 05/02/2013 which is beyond the period as prescribed in Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. We further find that the Department has not been able to establish by any cogent evidence that the Order-in-Original was actually delivered to the appellant. Further we find that the appellant was not aware of the issuance of the Order-in-Original dt. 29/02/2012 and they wrote 3 follow-up letters dt. 11/07/2012, 21/08/2012 and 17/10/2012 enquiring about the status of the adjudication. These letters, in spite of the fact that they were received by the Department, were not responded to at all by the Department and the Department did not inform the appellant regarding the status of their adjudication. Not only this, the appellant has also filed a RTI application before the CBEC but the same has not yielded any result.
The High Court of Rajasthan in the case of M/S RP CASTING PVT LTD VERSUS THE CUSTOM, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI AND ANR [2016 (6) TMI 996 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and M/S. VINOD CHOUDHARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2016 (5) TMI 834 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] have also categorically held that the Department has to prove the delivery of the orders and dispatch of the order is not sufficient for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals).
The appeal of the appellant is within time from the date of receipt of Order-in-Original - case remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) - appeal allowed by wayof remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1035
Recovery of interest on the delayed payment of the Service Tax - HELD THAT:- The applicants with a view to save the period of limitation may file the appeal before the CESTAT at the earliest but with a distinct understanding that the CESTAT shall not proceed to hear the appeal on merits as this Court is seized of the matter.
Having regard to the issues raised in this litigation, we direct that till the next date of hearing, no coercive steps shall be taken towards the recovery of the demand. Due to paucity of time, it is not possible to hear this matter before Diwali break - let this matter be notified on 08.12.2020.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1034
Rejection of application under SVLDRS 1 - rejection on the ground that “amount of penalty imposed had not been shown in Form SVLDRS 1, thus making it an incorrect declaration.” - HELD THAT:- On similar issue a Co-ordinate Bench has already disposed of a similar writ petition being PROLOY SEAL AND ANR., M/S. D.J. INFOSYSTEMS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS., THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS [2020 (7) TMI 184 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] - Mr. Keyal also submits that by this order this Hon’ble Court has remanded the matter back to the authorities concerned.
The impugned order is set aside - the matter is remanded back to the authorities to reconsider the application/declaration furnished by the petitioner and passed appropriate orders thereon in terms of the scheme and the rules framed there under. If the authorities require a fresh declaration then they shall permit the petitioner to file such declaration afresh.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1033
Rejection of SVLDRS-1 Form submitted by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This writ petition stands disposed of by requiring the petitioner to submit an application before the respondent authorities for the correction to be made in the information provided in the Form SVLDRS-1 as regards the disclosure of the dues from them and upon such application being made, the respondent authorities would pass a reasoned speaking order thereon. The requirement of submitting application be made within a period of 15 days from obtaining the certified copy of the order and upon receipt of the application, the respondent authorities shall pass an order on the same within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the application.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 910
CENVAT Credit - input service - Deposit Insurance Service provided by DICGC - output service is Banking and Other Financial Service - credit denied on the ground that such services have no nexus or connectivity with the actual performance of the banking service provided by the assessee-appellant - HELD THAT:- The issue with regard to availment of cenvat credit on the disputed service was highly debatable and there were conflicting views by different benches of the Tribunal. For resolving the dispute, the Larger Bench was constituted. In the case of M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX-CALICUT [2020 (6) TMI 278 - CESTAT BANGALORE], the Larger Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2020, reported in 2020-TIOL-861-CESTAT-BANG-LB has answered the reference holding that The insurance service provided by the Deposit Insurance Corporation to the banks is an “input service” and CENVAT credit of service tax paid for this service received by the banks from the Deposit Insurance Corporation can be availed by the banks for rendering ‘output services'.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 909
CENVAT credit - input services - insurance service received by the bank from the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) - HELD THAT:- The issue with regard to availment of cenvat credit on the disputed service was highly debatable and there were conflicting views by different benches of the Tribunal. For resolving the dispute, the Larger Bench was constituted. In the case of South Indian Bank Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Calicut, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal [2020 (6) TMI 278 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has answered the reference holding that The insurance service provided by the Deposit Insurance Corporation to the banks is an “input service” and CENVAT credit of service tax paid for this service received by the banks from the Deposit Insurance Corporation can be availed by the banks for rendering ‘output services’.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 863
CENVAT Credit - capital goods or inputs - Dumpers/trippers - time limitation - period in dispute is May, 2008 to March, 2009 - HELD THAT:- The present case can be disposed off on limitation itself without going into the merit of the case.
The appellant have bonafidely availed the Cenvat Credit in respect of Dumpers/trippers and the details of the credit was declared in their ST-3 Returns. Moreover, on the query from the Range Officer, the appellant have submitted invoice wise details of credit which contained the Cenvat Credit taken on invoices of Dumpers/trippers also. Therefore, there is no suppression or wilful suppression of facts to take the undue benefit of Cenvat Credit on the part of the appellant. It is also observed that the issue involves interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules - On the same issue number of judgments were passed wherein the tribunal has allowed the credit considering the same goods i.e. Dumpers/trippers as inputs.
Thus, it is clear that there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant in availing the Cenvat Credit on Dumpers/trippers therefore, the entire demand raised beyond the normal period is time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 859
Rejection of application under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection on the ground of inadvertent mistake as regards the penalty imposed being not correctly stated in the SVLDRS-1 form - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether an inadvertent mistake as regards the penalty imposed being not correctly stated in the SVLDRS-1 form, has been decided by this Court in its judgment ASSAM CRICKET ASSOCIATION VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS., THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE, ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL [2020 (6) TMI 38 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] where it was held that When we look into the Scheme 2019, we do not find any provision which provides that a person upon whom a penalty is imposed would not be entitled to the benefit given under the scheme. Infact on the contrary the provision of the Scheme 2019may be such that the benefit of exemption, may even be applicable to the amount of penalty imposed, in which event, the petitioner assesse may be more benefited and would be entitled to a greater exemption if the amount of penalty was mentioned rather than not mentioning the penalty.
This writ petition also stands disposed of by requiring the petitioner to submit an application before the respondent authorities for correction to be made in the information provided in the Form SVLDRS-1 as regards the penalty imposed and upon such application being made, the respondent authorities would pass a reasoned speaking order thereon. The requirement of submitting application be made within a period of 15 days from obtaining the certified copy of the order and upon receiving of the application, the respondents shall pass an order on the same within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the application.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 775
Rectification of error - error apparent on the face of record - Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 - GTA service or Supply of Tangible Goods without transfer of right to use - reverse charge mechanism - summons issued for production of documents which were not done - evasion of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- There are no grounds to substantiate that part of the service were that of goods transport agent services. The petitioner had also not co-operated during the investigation and therefore DRI was able to issue the Show Cause Notice only after procuring records through Income Tax/Service Tax Commissionerate its recipient of the recipient of services.
If the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner should only file a statutory appeal. The petitioner cannot expect the court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to arrive at a conclusion as to whether there was any error apparent on the face of record as the order is detailed.
By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has attempted to avoid payment of pre-deposit Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to appeals under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which is a more effective remedy though it would involve a pre-deposit - The mere fact that Tax Deductions at Source (TDS) may have been made by some of the service recipients under Section 194C and some under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, may, ipso facto would not justify the conclusion that there was the wrong Assessment/Demand of Service Tax. There is no error apparent on the face of record.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 731
Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Classification of Services - Business Auxiliary Services or Erection, Commissioning or Installation? - sales commission received by the appellant from M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd., M/s. Lanco Industries Ltd., and M/s. Pacific Pipe Systems Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the subject-matter and the issue decided by the Tribunal, the appeal would lie to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 35L of the Act 1944.
Without entering into the merits of the matter, this appeal is disposed off on the ground that the same is not maintainable before this Court. It would be open for the Revenue to avail appropriate legal remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law.
-
2020 (10) TMI 730
Classification of services - Business Auxiliary Services or not - Sales Promotion Agency - extended period of limitation - penalties - HELD THAT:- “Business Auxiliary Service” is defined during the relevant period included the services related to promotion or marketing or sales of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client. The agreements which have been entered into clearly state that the appellant has been employed as a promoter of the products of their clients - It is true that there is only one customer viz; APBCL in the State of Andhra Pradesh who purchases IMFL from various distilleries and in turn would sell it in retail. Therefore, it is in the interest of every distillery to ensure that they sell more to the customer of APBCL. This is sought to be done, inter alia, by close coordination with the retailers, to ensure maximum quantities of their client’s products are ordered by the retailer from the depots of APBCL. For this purpose, they need to promote and market their goods to the sole customer.
The Promoter i.e. the appellant got paid at ₹ 8/- per case as service charges on the secondary sales of their brands during the period of agreement. All these factors make it abundantly clear that not only is the agreement titled as sales promotion agreement but the responsibilities of the appellant or that of sales promotion, there may be some other related incidental responsibilities and the payment to the appellant is based on the sales of the products. Although there is only one wholesale buyer, APBCL, their orders depend on the orders which the retailers place on the depots of APBCL. The appellant was specifically required to ensure that the retailers place maximum quantities of the client’s products on APBCL depots. Thus, the services rendered by the appellant are in the nature of promotion and marketing of the clients’ products - the appellant is liable to pay service tax under “Business Auxiliary Services” for the services rendered by them.
Extended period of Limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not taken the registration nor disclosed the nature of their activities to the Service Tax Department at any stage. It is only on the basis of specific intelligence and follow up of investigations that it has come to the light that the appellant was rendering Business Auxiliary Services and has neither obtained registration nor filed returns nor has paid any service tax whatsoever - the appellant has suppressed these facts and therefore the invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 73 is correct and proper. Consequently, the confirmation of interest is also liable to be upheld - penalties also upheld.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 677
CENVAT Credit - reverse charge mechanism - It appeared to Revenue that the said amount of cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 49,91,539/- is not admissible to appellant, as cenvat credit is admissible only when such input service/ inputs are used in providing any output service - HELD THAT:- The appellant is entitled to input service credit of ₹ 49,91,591/- in dispute. All the services in question are eligible input services for rendering of output services. There is no dispute as regards receipt of any of the input services.
Demand of short paid service Tax - GTA service - recipient of service - non-payment of service tax for renting of immovable property service for the period April, 2011 to September, 2011 - HELD THAT:- The said amount is also not tenable as the said demand was prima facie raised under the impression that the appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit of ₹ 49,91,539/-. Further, we find that the appellant have deposited the service tax as per their calculation and is also evident from the calculation chart and the payment challans brought on record vide miscellaneous application, which was earlier allowed vide order dated 03.12.2019 - further, Revenue have not pleaded that the VCES application filed by the appellant on 24.12.2013 for tax dues upto December, 2012 have been rejected. Even otherwise the appellant have deposited all the taxes, as is evident.
The appellant is directed to file a copy of the calculation chart alongwith evidence of payment of service tax before the adjudicating authority for verification. If any amount is found to be short paid, the same shall be deposited on being so pointed out by the adjudicating authority. The excess amount deposited, if any, shall be adjusted in accordance with law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 676
CENVAT Credit - input/input services - renting of immovable property service - advertisement service - business support service - security service - legal consultancy service, etc. - period April, 2010 to June, 2012 - HELD THAT:- The issues in this appeals are no longer res integra and the same have been decided in favour of the appellant by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - credit on all services allowed.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|
