2019 (6) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent ORDER PER ASHOK JINDAL: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein demand of service tax has been confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is the manufacturer of excisable goods and exporting thereof. During the course of export, the appellant paid certain commission to their overseas agent, who w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it is a fact that the appellant is liable to pay the service tax under reverse charge mechanism and is not contesting the same. But he submits that on pointing out by the audit, the appellant paid the service tax along with interest to by peace, but instead of closing the case, a show cau .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly, the appellant is liable to pay service tax and is to be penalised. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that whatever service tax would have been paid by the appellant, the same is entitled as the Cenvat credit to the appellant. This fact is not in dispute, therefore, malafides on the part of the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X