9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee- Appellants, during the period under consideration, were registered as a supplier for various services and provided various services including management, maintenance or repairs services and commercial training or coaching services. They were also supplying tangible goods (helicopters) for use of its clients, but did not get registered for providing this service. The assessee- Appellants received Rs. 7,62,27,061/- towards various taxable services provided to its clients for the period Jan 2009 - sep 2009, but failed to file its ST-3 returns and availed Cenvat Credit. On 23.11.2009, a team from the anti-evasion wing of the Department visited the premises of the appellant. The anti-evasion wing found that the appellant had wrongly availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority did not find that the assessee- Appellants had failed to discharge its liability of payment of Service Tax and interest thereon and also interest payable on wrongly availed Cenvat Credit. It was the submission of the learned counsel that they had acted bonafidely and hence extended period of limitation could not be invoked. He further submitted that thougn the Department came to know all these facts as early as on 23.11.2009, but issued the show cause notice after an inordinate delay of nearly three and a half years by invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground that the assessee- Appellants had, rather than showing the receipts under their respective heads in the ST-3 Returns, shown them under maintenan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 22.03.2013 i.e. after around more than three years which is beyond the period of limitation. From the record, we find that the assessee- Appellants have deposited the Service Tax along with interest, but, inadvertently, under different head. From the record, we also find that the assessee- Appellants had reversed the Credit wrongly availed by them for the period under dispute much before the issuance of the show cause notice. Hence, bonafide of assessee- Appellants cannot be questioned. To substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs. Adani Gas Pvt. Ltd.; 2017 (356) ELT 541 (Gujajet High Court); DCM Shriram Industries Vs. Union of India; 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
