TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant assessee. So in such circumstances, it cannot be alleged that the appellant assessee had any time suppressed the material fact from the department with intention of committing any fraud or suppression of the fact, before the department. There is no question of suppression of fact and the demand, if at all is required to be raised by Revenue, it was to be done within normal period. Interest - Held that:- As the entire demand have been paid by the assessee along with interest as per their own calculation which has been accepted by the adjudicating authority - interest not leviable. Penalty - Held that:- The demand has been raised for the impugned period in year 2007 which is held to be time barred, as there was no suppression on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity. The appellant assessee was issued with two show cause notices proposing to deny Cenvat credit availed by them for the period April 2006 to Sept. 2006 on the ground that the input services on which Cenvat credits have availed do not qualify for the same, under Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The show cause notice was issued on 1.8.2007 for the period October 2004 to March 2006. Another show cause notice was issued on 16.10.2007 proposing to recover the service tax amounting to ₹ 2,37,89,487/- and education cess amounting to ₹ 1,75,775/- on amounts received during 2002-2003 to 2005-2006 in contravention of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Rules. The demand was proposed on the ground that the bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding the intention of availing the centralised billing for all the branches and their site offices. The same was also confirmed by the Divisional Assistant Commissioner vide his letter dated 4.9.1997. The fact was about the availment of Cenvat credit after getting the permission from the Divisional Assistant Commissioner was known to the department and the same was also reflected in their ST-3 returns for the period of October 2005 to March 2006, and also in the subsequent Returns. (iii) That the impugned order is not sustainable on the fact that the Cenvat Credit Rules was introduced in the year 2004 and does not in any way disentitled the appellant assessee having centralised registration prior to that date from availing Cenvat cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of the Act and the Rules. 5. Heard the parties and considered the facts available on the appeal record. 6. The issue involved in this case is regarding availment of utilisation of the Cenvat credit for the period October 2004 to March 2006 to the extent of 19,40,220/-. It is seen from the record that the appellant assessee has applied for the centralised billing system vide their letter AC-224-13A dated 21.8.1997 and the same has been accepted by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 4.9.1997. In view of above, it is not correct on part of the ld. Adjudicating authority to hold that the assessee was not having the centralised registration. On the contrary, it is also seen that in the year 2007, which the ld. Adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns filed by the appellant assessee. The ld. Adjudicating authority after going through the various submissions made by the appellant has concluded which is as under : The said assessee have disputed the method of calculation adopted in the impugned notice. They have stated that the value of taxable service cannot be calculated, in their case, on the basis of above formula. Accordingly to them invoices are raised on the clients on the basis of payment schedule. Any amount received against the invoices raised during the year is credited to the Advance received against job A/c . Any amount received against the invoices raised in earlier year is credited to debtors A/c . The amount of total calculation during a period can be ascer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f there be any. According to this statement, total amount received during the period 2002-03 to 2005-06 was ₹ 205,44,75,269/-. As per ST-3 Returns, the said assessee paid Service Tax on the value of ₹ 194,02,52,158/-. They did not pay Service Tax on an amount of ₹ 11,42,23,111/- on due date. They paid Service Tax amounting to ₹ 1,00,00,000/- (one crore) relatable to value of ₹ 11,20,97,681/- vide TR-6 challan dated 20.2.05 and disclosed in the return for the period March 2006. Balance amount of value on which Service Tax has not been paid was ₹ 21,25,430/-. In their written note submitted on 12.9.08, the said assessee admitted the liability of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 3,53,722/- and Education Cess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
