2021 (9) TMI 586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tative for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The issue involved is that whether the appellant is liable to penalty of Rs. 20,563/- under section 11AC which was imposed for wrong availment of credit on the contribution of employee recovered by the appellant against the service of rent a cab operator service. Shri. Dhaval Shah, Learned Counsel at the outset concedes that he is not contesting dis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erves to be set aside. 3. Shri. Dharmendra Kanjani, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the demand of Rs. 20,563/- was confirmed invoking proviso to section 11A (1) therefore the extended period was invoked. Once the demand is confirmed invoking proviso to section 11A (1) the penalty under section 11AC is ine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... there is no ingredients existing as to the facts of this case whereby the proviso to section 11A (1) can be invoked. He submits that the credit of Rs. 20,563/- was denied for the reason that it is attributable to the contribution of input service i.e. rent a cab service. This issue has been decided by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultra tech, before that there was no clarity. 4.1 I ag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X