TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned in ST-3 return filed by the appellant from time to time for the period. Such payments were made vide various challans as mentioned in the ST-3 return. Copies of the challans were also enclosed before the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith copy of the return - learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not cared to verify the payments of taxes already made for which facts were led before the Commissioner (Appeals), and summarily rejected the contention observing that on the one hand the assessee is contesting the allegations and simultaneously they have deposited the amount with challan. It is further observed that no supporting / evidences were submitted by the appellant facilitating the Adjudicating Authority to verify the correctness of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which has been explained by the appellant, that the same was due to cenvat credit taken short, which was noticed later on in the month of September, 2014 when audit was finalised. In view of the cogent explanation given by the assessee, this ground is also allowed in favour of the appellant and the demand of cenvat credit is set aside. Levy of penalty u/s 78 of FA - HELD THAT:- There is no contumacious conduct of fraud or suppression of facts by the appellant, the penalty imposed under Section 78(1) ₹ 3,69,970/- or (₹ 3,27,503/- + ₹ 42,467/-) is set aside - Further penalty of ₹ 1,49,752/- under section 78 is also set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50864 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put services being hiring of motor vehicle, supply of manpower services and legal services. It is also alleged that during the period April, 2016 to March, 2017, the appellant received commission of ₹ 85,10,228/- on which although service tax was paid, but there appears to be delay ranging from 53 to 329 days, thus the interest for delayed payment of service tax of ₹ 1,49,752/-, is not disputed and it is submitted by the Counsel that the said amount has already been paid. 4. Another issue raised by the ld. Counsel regarding irregular availment of cenvat credit of ₹ 42,467/-. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further states that, it is being of clerical mistake in nature, and this amount has already been paid. However, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confirmed alongwith imposition of penalty under Section 78. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) but the same was rejected by non-speaking and cryptic order. 8. Heard the parties. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the appellant has contended that the amount of ₹ 14,36,098/-, which was payable under reverse charge mechanism have been paid and the details mentioned in ST-3 return filed by the appellant from time to time for the period. Such payments were made vide various challans as mentioned in the ST-3 return. Copies of the challans were also enclosed before the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith copy of the return. 10. On going through the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice is not sufficient for invocation of extended period of limitation, as admittedly, the appellant has maintained regular books of accounts which are audited by auditor nominated by the AG of State. Further, the appellant is registered assessee and filed their returns regularly and deposited the taxes as admitted by them. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that extended period of limitation is not invocable and accordingly the demand for the period April, 2012 to March, 2015 is set aside on this ground. The amount of ₹ 42,467/- and ₹ 1,49,752/- are not contested as stated by the learned Counsel at the time of hearing and further states that the said amounts has already been deposited. Furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
