Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (8) TMI 325

..... payment of service tax - HELD THAT:- The appellants have produced the certificate from the service receiver who has certified that original bills were revised and they have paid the Service Tax on revised invoice. Further, the appellant has also produced the certificate of Chartered Accountant for the revision of invoices of the service receiver and accordingly the reduction in invoice value was due to negotiations and revised invoices were raised - the demand of ₹ 1,40,397/- confirmed is not tenable in law and is set aside. Availment of CENVAT credit of ₹ 48,717/- paid as rent and telephone bills - HELD THAT:- In the SCN, it is not disputed that the input services are in relation to rendering output service and hence input serv .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... n the ground that the name of service recipient is not mentioned in the invoice is not sustainable in law when all other details which are required as per Rule 9 are present. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The period covered in the SCN is 4/2013 to 3/2015 and the SCN was issued on 30.12.2016 which is clearly beyond the normal period of 18 months and therefore the entire demand raised in the SCN is time barred - further extended period cannot be invoked because the appellant has disclosed all the receipts in the ST-3 Returns and there is no suppression on the part of the appellant to evade the Service Tax. Appeal allowed on merits as well as on limitation. - ST/20125/2019-SM - Final Order No.20617/2019 - 6-8-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... e same. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that short payment of Service Tax of ₹ 1,40,397/- was due to downward revision of work contract and adjusted the same towards payment of Service Tax in September 2013 and enclosed a certificate from service receivers in this regard. He further submitted that the excess adjustment of CENVAT credit was clearly disclosed in ST-3 Returns for the period April 2013 to September 2013 and therefore, the demand is time barred. He also submitted that the CENVAT credit of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... y the appellant is not eligible to adjust the excess payment of Service Tax and this finding of the Commissioner is beyond the SCN. In this regard, I rely upon the judgment in the case of Kandarp Dilipbhai Dholakia Vs UOI [2014 (307) ELT 484 (Guj.)] wherein it has been held that if the impugned order is beyond the SCN then the same is liable to be set aside. Further, I find that the appellants have also produced the certificate from the service receiver who has certified that original bills were revised and they have paid the Service Tax on revised invoice. Further, I find that the appellant has also produced the certificate of Chartered Accountant for the revision of invoices of the service receiver and accordingly I hold that reduction in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... issioner (Appeals) has not denied the fact that the input services are in relation to rendering output services. Further, I find that the appellants have availed the credit of Service Tax on input services only after the payment made to the service provider. Further, the appellant has also produced Chartered Accountant certificate for proof of availment of CENVAT credit in the input ledger credit and payment made to the service provider. Further, the appellant has recorded the payment in the input credit ledger and bank statements also showing the payment of Service Tax of ₹ 1,77,839/-. Therefore the denial of the CENVAT credit only on the ground that the name of service recipient is not mentioned in the invoice is not sustainable in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||