TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .09.2014 which has got perspective effect as held by Hon ble Allahabad High Court in CCE vs. Ram Swarup Electricals Ltd. [2007 (5) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT , ALLAHABAD]. It cannot be applied to the period prior to 01.09.2014 - disallowance of Cenvat Credit is set aside. Demand of differential tax of ₹ 61,997/- - for the financial year 2011-12 the gross receipt is computed as ₹ 5,51,73,149/- which comprises of signal fee ₹ 3,77,39,469/- but in the SCN it has been erroneously taken at 3,83,39,469/- thus there has been a difference of ₹ 6 lacs - Held that:- Te said clerical mistake in final account was noticed by appellants subsequently. Appreciating the mistake as same is evident from the record and books of account mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or time selling service for advertisements. Appellants charged and collected service tax and discharged the liability, mainly through Cenvat Credit. Show Cause Notice date 20.10.2015 was issued for the extended period of limitation for the period from 2010-11 to 2013-14 proposing the demand of service tax ₹ 2,14,39,834/- on forward charge basis including ₹ 7,411/- on reverse charge basis on legal services to disallow Cenvat Credit on input services on the ground that the credit has been taken after one year from the date of duty paying documents imposed penalties under various sections and demand of late fee. 3. The SCN was adjudicated and the proposed demand was confirmed and the Cenvat Credit as proposed was disallowed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 12 - Industrial Cables vs. CCE reported at 2009 (236) ELT 658. - Bharat Wagon Engg. Co. Ltd. vs. CCE reported at 2001 (131) ELT 681. - Ajay Industrial Corporation vs. CCE reported at 2002 (147) ELT 786. - ITW Signode India Ltd. vs. CCE reported at 2003 (158) ELT 406 (SC). B. The Commissioner has confirmed demand of ₹ 2,14,39,834/-. Appellants in its defence reply had contended that their liability would be ₹ 2,13,78,037/-. The difference of ₹ 61,800/- is on account of taking signal fee as ₹ 3,83,39,469/- against the actual amount of ₹ 3,77,39,469/- for the year 2011-12. In fact the gross amount of revenue for 2011-12 was ₹ 5,51,73,149/- but the show cause notice/impugned order considers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of business, we set aside the demand of difference amount of ₹ 61,997/- . We further notice that the demand has arisen mainly due to disallowance of Cenvat Credit which we have now allowed. Under such facts and circumstances we observe that there is no deliberate defiance of the provision of law nor there is any act of suppression on the part of the appellant and the transaction was recorded in the books of accounts ordinarily maintained in the course of business, therefore, we set aside the penalties under Sections 77(1)(b), 77(1)(c)(i), 77(1)(c)(iii), 77(2) and Rule 15(3) of CCR, 2004. Penalty of ₹ 1,80,000/- under Section 70 is retained however it reduced to ₹ 14,400/- in terms of Section 70 and Rule 7C of Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
