9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the appellant. 2. The issue in brief is that the appellants were providing taxable service and had not discharged correct service tax liability to the tune of Rs. 13,63,591/- by suppressing the gross value of Rs. 90,90,609/-, which was not declared in their statutory ST-3 returns during the financial year 2016- 17 and 2017-18 (First Quarter). Therefore, show cause notice was issued by the Department for recovery of service tax amount of Rs. 13,63,591/- which was based on differential value declared in ST-3 returns (which were not filed) with value declared to the Income Tax Authority under ITR. The show cause notice was issued invoking extended period and also proposed for penalty under Section 78 and other provisions. 3. On adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to some technical error and in support of that they have screen shots which would indicate that they had tried to file their ST returns in time. However, one being made aware of service tax liability on account of difference, they had filed service tax returns as well as discharged the duty liability, utilising Cenvat Credit available to them. He further states that these credits were duly recorded in their books of accounts during the relevant time in support of which they had furnished ledger also in support of that these invoices were genuinely issued and received by them. Therefore, despite this, invocation of extended period is bad in law. On the second point that the liability pointed by the Department has already been discharged by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te has been raised by the Department against such filed ST-3 returns or any separate action has been initiated for denying the benefit of credit claimed in the said ST-3 returns by the appellant. I further find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue of non-entitlement of credit in a rather cryptic manner by merely reiterating the grounds taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority. He has not independently examined various case laws and the facts which were advanced by the appellant in support of their being eligible to take those credit. Relevant portion of impugned order is cited below for ease of reference: "6. Further on perusal of the records it is observed that they had availed the credit on Inputs and Capital Goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation is concerned, despite the Learned Advocate raising various grounds, I find that the matter needs to be re - examined in the light of evidences on record and certain evidences as argued by the Learned Advocate i.e screen shots of their having tried to file ST-3 returns during the relevant time, correspondence with the Department in this regard etc., may have to be taken into consideration. Therefore, I am leaving the issue of eligibility of credit and limitation open, which will be decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) after going through all the supporting evidences and relevant case laws cited by the appellant. 10. Therefore, Appeal is disposed off by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals). ( Dictated and Pronounced in ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
