TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eliance Infocomm Infrastructure Ltd. was pointed out by the audit team to have availed ineligible cenvat credit of Rs. 23,98,774/- on "business support service" and "renting of immovable property service." Between the Financial year 2009-10 and 2011-12, it was also discovered by the said EA 2000 audit that there was mismatch between profit and loss account and balance sheet with ST3 returns for the Financial year 2010-11 and reconciliation of the same brought a difference of Rs. 48,69,069/- in the taxable value which was less shown in the ST-3 returns and accordingly service tax liability of Rs. 5,01,483/- was calculated. In compliance to such audit observation, appellant discharged duty liability along with interest for both components but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce itself and ingredient of the offence constituting suppression misstatement and intention to evade payment of service tax on the part of respondent was squarely made out in the OIO as discussed in para 1.3 and 1.4. of the order. He placed his reliance on the order of the CESTAT Ahmedabad bench in the case of Geedelon Texo Twist Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (238) ELT 455 (T-Ahd) to support his contention. He further submitted that the respondent department had not disclosed the entire transaction in ST3 return for which it can be considered to have misstated the facts with a clear intention to evade payment of duty and had audit not been conducted, the fact of not discharging service tax liability would have remained unnoticed and since resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty/show-cause notice can be given by the assessee thus leading to better compliance and less litigation. The respondent abided itself with the letter and spirit of the audit report but was put to show-cause notice subsequent to its compliance of the audit and payment of differentia amount of tax along with interest as well as reversal of credit. Supporting the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the learned counsel for the respondent in citing judicial decisions reported in 2017 (47) STR 225 (Tri-Mum), 2016 (45) STR 99 (Tri-Mum) and 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar) argued that as per Section 73(3) of the Finance Act issuing a show-cause notice after payment of service tax with interest is not supported by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as suppression with malafide intention to evade payment of tax because no opportunity was provided to the appellant to justify such mismatching. On the other hand para 1.2 of the said order indicates that on being pointed out on such difference of amount which was shown less in the ST3 return, the appellant had accepted the objection and discharged the service tax liability. In respect of wrong availment of cenvat credit, no finding is given in the OIO or OIA that those credits were in fact inadmissible and not supported by the Rule except that respondent had accepted the fact of such availment of such credit as inadmissible. Though admissibility or inadmissibility of the credit in respect of renting of immovable property and business supp....