TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice provider. Further the question of payment of interest under Section 75 and the penalty u/r 15(3) of the CCR is not justified as the appellants have not committed any default - the service tax has already been paid and demanding the same again is wrong and illegal - the service tax has already been paid and demanding the same again is wrong and illegal and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20366/2016-SM - 22813/2017 - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri M. Saravanan, Consultant For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Deputy Commissioner, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- during the period April 2011 to January 2013 in respect of input services on the basis of invoices which do not bear the Service Tax Registration Number of the service provider. Also it was noticed that the assessee had availed and utilized irregular cenvat credit of ₹ 60,23,829/- during the period April 2011 to January 2013 in respect of invoices issued not in the address of the assessee. Further, verification revealed that the assessee had not made payment of ₹ 8,07,065/- on reverse charge mechanism from 01.07.2012, as per notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.12, read with Rule 2(d)(1) (F) (b) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Therefore, show-cause notice No.75/2014-ST dated 21.08.2014 was issued for denial of the said credit a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er considering the reasons given by the appellant and after considering the decision of the Tribunal, the learned Commissioner held that the credit cannot be denied for procedural infraction as far as their issue which relates to eligibility of cenvat credit of ₹ 8,07,065/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seven Thousand and Sixty Five only) availed on the invoices wherein the noticee failed to pay 75% of the service tax on reverse charge mechanism as provided under law. The appellant submitted that right from the beginning the claim of the appellant is that the service provider has raised invoice charging 100% ST which was paid to them and the service provider in turn had paid it to the Government and in support of this fact the appellant has pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only) was wrongly demanded by the Commissioner because the appellant had paid 100% service tax to the service provider and thereafter availed the cenvat credit therefore asking the appellant to pay the cenvat credit of ₹ 8,07,065/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seven Thousand and Sixty Five only) is wrong and not sustainable in law. The learned Commissioner has not considered the factum of payment of 100% service tax on the services received by the appellant from the service provider. Further the question of payment of interest under Section 75 and the penalty under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is not justified as the appellants have not committed any default. Therefore, in view of the fact that the service tax has already been paid an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
