9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drop of the case is that appellant is engaged in Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency services and during rate conducted by DGCEI on 22.07.2014 in another company named M/s ASMACS located in the same premises, it was found that appellant had paid Service Tax as per its ST-3 return which was invariance with Balance Sheet and it appeared that taking gross income of the appellant, on which Service Tax is chargeable, the appellant was due to make payment of Rs. 12,47,029/- as short paid duty. It was put to show-cause notice, matter was adjudicated upon, duty demand along with interest and penalty was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and by the Appellate Authority. The appeal assailed the order of Commissioner (Appeals) before this forum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s entitled to CENVAT credit on the Service Tax made by M/s ASMACS. He placed his reliance on the case laws reported in 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC), 2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC) and 2016 (344) ELT 1132 (Tri.-Mumbai) concerning revenue neutrality while pleading for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Learned Authorised Representative for the respondent-department Shri O.M. Shivadikar, Asst. Commissioner, in response to such submission of appellant, contented that in view of Notification No. 21/2014-CE(NT) dated 11.07.2018 and its subsequent amendment w.e.f. 01.03.2015 vide Notification No. 06/2015-CE(NT) availment of CENVAT credit is possible within one year for which technical mistake that such CENVAT credit could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the credit of appellant but due to erroneous filing of ST-3 return, they failed to put the CENVAT credit in the appropriate column for which demand was raised where as duty was not payable as it was a technical error. On going by the Order-in-Original it can be seen from para 22.5 (v) as well as show-cause notice that no invoice/bill was raised against such collection from the candidates and therefore the amount shown in the balance sheet was taken by the respondent-department as the gross value. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the entire bill is raised by the appellant except figure mentioned in the balance sheet. 5. It is admitted by the adjudicating authority and found approval by the Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
