Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 84 - CESTAT BANGALORECENVAT Credit - trading activity - non-maintenance of separate records - income from derivatives (trading profit) - investment made by the appellant towards buying and selling of derivatives amounts to trading of derivatives or not - Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- This is an admitted fact that the appellants were regularly submitting Returns and there is no allegation that the appellant had suppressed or omitted any facts while submitting such Returns. The appellant is registered with the service tax department under different categories; they are engaged in the trading of derivatives during the period from October 2011 to March 2016. Even if it may be negligible, it is an admitted fact that they have not maintained separate account for Cenvat credit availed for discharging the service liability for the taxable service provided by them. On going through the case laws submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant in ACE CREATIVE LEARNING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU SOUTH GST COMMISSIONERATE [2021 (4) TMI 687 - CESTAT BANGALORE] where this Tribunal has taken a decision regarding exempted service of trading in mutual fund and also held that extended period of limitation not invokable where Revenue”s case is based on balance sheet, Returns and other records of the assessee and also as per the provisions of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the present case - the appellant is liable for reversal of credit only for the normal period and the order invoking demand for the extended period of limitation is set aside. As per the submissions made by appellant, pro-rata reversal for the period from 2014-15 is Rs.1,65,675/- and for the financial year 2015-16 is Rs.1,16,896/-. However, there is no finding given by adjudicating authority regarding amount payable for the normal period. The matter is remanded to adjudicating authority to re-determine the amount by way of short payment of service tax with interest as per provision of Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 only. Since there is no allegation regarding suppression of fact by the assessee in their Returns, the extended period of limitation is not applicable and penalty imposed by the impugned order is also set aside. The appeal is partially allowed and is remanded to adjudication authority.
|