9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Administrative Training Institute, MCRHRD etc. as Educational Institutions and they have not paid the requisite Service Tax. On this count, a view was taken that Service Tax of Rs. 6,41,146/- was not paid by the appellant. It was also pointed out that the appellants have not maintained separate accounts for the cenvat credit taken on account of input and input services for the taxable and exempt services. Therefore, a view was taken that appellant was required to reverse Rs. 1,68,825/- in terms of Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant paid an amount of Rs. 6,48,577/- towards the Service Tax on various services which were earlier treated by them as exempt service along with interest of Rs. 1,27,119/-. However, they did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed. 4. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower authority and he submits though the appellant has taken the cenvat credit even on account of the exempt service, after quantifying the demand as per 6%/7% of the exempt turnover, which came to Rs. 48,36,416/-, the Department has correctly calculated the actual liability in terms of Rule 6(3AA) to quantify the amount to Rs. 1,68,825/-. In view of these submissions, the learned AR prays that no action is required to be taken by the Tribunal against the remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides, perused the appeal papers and the submissions made by both sides. 6. I find that the first issue about the non-payment of Service Tax on various exempt services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, considering the facts of the case, I set aside the penalty on such Service Tax. 8. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel that the appellant has paid some excess Service Tax during the previous period and Department has to adjust the net Service Tax liability is concerned. He submits that this plea also taken before the lower authorities. I do not find any reason to entertain this submission of the appellant. In case they had paid more Service Tax during the earlier years, it was for them to quantify the same and to file a proper refund claim within the framework specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority has correctly held that there is no statutory provision to carry out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
