9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority and rejected the appeal of the appellant against the Order-in-Original dated 12.05.2023. 2. The issue, in brief, is that on the basis of Audit, Department found that the appellants were providing certain taxable services in respect of which no details were furnished in the ST-3 returns during the month of March, 2016 and June 2016. On the basis of details of the taxable value, as was available in the ledger and ST-3 for these 2 months, it was found that there is short reporting of taxable services to the extent of Rs. 1,80,42,528/- leading to non-payment of differential tax of Rs. 26,24,489/-. The appellant tried to explain the differential duty and informed that they had paid Rs. 8,85,158/- Vide challan no. 34093 dated 05.08.2016 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r books of accounts and also reflected the same in their IT Returns 2016 and 2017 as unutilized credit, which has been clearly reflected as closing balance of Rs. 16,15,643/- while filing the returns for the year 2016-17 in IT returns for 2015-16 (later on adjusted to Rs. 14,89,558/-, on account of exclusion of CESS account from the said balance). Therefore, his argument is that though admittedly this credit was not reflected in the relevant ST-3 filed for the said period as is evident from the ST-3 returns for the quarter ending October to March 2016 and April to September 2016, however, they had sufficient credit balance and the same was adjusted in the month of April 2016 against their tax liability. This would be clear from Returns for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of service tax for the period mentioned in the show cause notice however, what he is disputing is the adjustment of credit against said outstanding liability, which has not been allowed by the Department. 6. On the other hand, Learned AR has reiterated the grounds taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) and has also quoted proviso 3(4) of CCR 2004 in support that there is a restriction on taking the credit and it is not clear whether in view of the said adjustment is possible or otherwise. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 8. A short point for decision is whether in the facts of the case, the credit claimed to have been adjusted against the service tax liability by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Authority. 10. In this case, Learned AR has also pointed out that there is a provision putting restriction on the availment of credit, however, prima facie, it appears that for the month of March there is a apparent adjustment in the month of April itself though it needs to be further verified. Since, the factual matrix is not very clear and the appellant will be required to demonstrate the actual availability of credit and its adjustment in their books of accounts, this requires to be remanded back to the Original Jurisdictional Authority, who shall go through the books of accounts, IT Returns and any other relevant documents which the appellants may like to produce in support of their legitimate Cenvat Credit and its adjustment. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
