9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellant was registered under the Service Tax regime. However, they did not chose to carry forward or to migrate cenvat credit to the GST regime, being the closing balance as on 30.06.2017. Pursuant to carrying an examination of the data of the appellant on the ACES software, it appeared to Revenue that appellant have mis-declared their turnover and furnished incomplete information in their ST-3 returns, with intent to evade payment of service tax. It also appeared that though the appellant has taken credit, but some of the documents are not in their possession for support. Such facts came to the notice only in the course of enquiry and correspondence by the Department. Accordingly, appellant was required to show cause by notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther requested that the amount of cenvat credit of Rs. 14,30,166/-, lying in their favour (credit) as on 30.06.2017, may be allowed to be adjusted against the demand payable, specifically pointing out that this amount has not been carried forwarded to GST in Form TRAN-1 (not filed). 5. In the order-in-original the Adjudicating Authority has observed that due to introduction of GST w.e.f. 01.07.2017, cenvat credit account cannot be adjusted because Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, are no longer applicable. Further, observed that Section 140 of CGST Act provides for the arrangement for cenvat credit balance lying in their return relating to the period ending on 30.06.2017. The said Section reads as follows:- "Section 140(1) A registered p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e amount already paid towards interest is appropriated. The proposed disallowance of cenvat credit of Rs. 66,452/- was also confirmed alongwith interest. It was further held that on the cenvat credit of Rs. 2,97,289/- taken in the month of September, 2014 whereas it relates to Invoice No. 454 dated 31.10.2014, and hence they are liable to interest @ 18% for one month, which was calculated as Rs. 4545/-. Further, penalty under Section 78 was imposed for Rs. 16,06,371/- (Rs. 15,39,919 + Rs. 66,452/-). Further, mentioning that the appellant is entitle to reduced penalty of 25%, if deposited within thirty days from the receipt of the adjudicating order. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stment of tax liability out of the cenvat credit available during that period (earlier period), which has not been carried forward to the CGST regime. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. 10. Learned Authorised Representative Shri Pradeep Gupta appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd., vs. Asstt./ Dy. Commr. of GST, Chennai -2019 (24) GSTL 342 (Mad.), wherein the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was that - Mountain Valley was unable to avail the benefit of cenvat credit lying as on 30.06.2017 as they have failed to file the requisite form, due to technical glit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
