9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The brief facts are that the appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department since July, 2012 providing services under the category of Management or Business Consultant Service, Market Research Agency Service, Maintenance or repair Service, erection, commissioning and installation service. Revenue audit took place in December 2019 and the Revenue noticed the following facts :- (i) Alleged Non-payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 3,67,125/- on commission received for providing the intermediary services by the perusal of Rule 2 (f) of POPS Rules, 2012; and; (ii) Alleged Excess Availment of Abatement, wherein the liability of service tax was amounts to Rs. 25,083/-; and ; (iii) Alleged inadmissible carry forward of E. Cess a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit and have not taken Cenvat credit of such payment of tax. Thus the situation is whether revenue neutral. By virtue of provision of CGST Act, any amount paid for period prior to 1st July, 2017 by way of service tax which is available to the assessee by way of the Cenvat credit, such amount becomes refundable as such credit cannot be taken on or after 1st July, 2017. 6. The next objection of audit was inadmissible carry forward of E. Cess and S.H.E. Cess availed Rs. 3,34,550/-. I find from Notification No. 22/2015-CE (NT) dated 29.10.2015, wherein proviso has been inserted in Rule 3 (7) (b) after the 5th proviso of Cenvat Credit Rules to the effect that w.e.f. 1st June, 2015, cess received after 1st June, 2015 can be utilized fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demands raised of tax, the major part of demand in respect of GTA service, the situation is revenue neutral as the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on payment of service tax in cash. Further, I find that the only allegation in SCN for invocation of extended period of limitation is that the afore-mentioned omissions came to light in the course of audit, but for which tax would have escaped. I find that such allegations do not stand, as admittedly appellant have deposited the tax and accepted the audit objection, prior to issue of SCN. Accordingly, I hold that extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue for issue of SCN on 30.04.2020. 11. In view of above findings, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit. Impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
