9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s/one year during the relevant period i.e. from financial year 2013-14 to June, 2017 and demanded through 2 show-cause cumdemand- notices dated 22.04.2019 and 14.10.2019 while dropping of rest of demands is assailed by the Assessee-Appellant to the extent the order is adversarial to the Assessee-Appellant. 2. Facts of the case would go to indicate that Appellant was engaged in providing advertising agency services and due to mismatch of I.T. TDS data and data provided in ST-3 Returns, demandcum- show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant for recovery of Service Tax of Rs.1,22,95,795/- for financial year 2013-14 and for financial year from 2014-15 to June, 2017, another demand-cumshow- cause notice was issued for recovery of an amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is vitiated as contrary to provision contained in Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. He further submitted that while filing ST- 3 Returns and making payment of differential amount in cash, Appellant had all-along deducted the CENVAT Credit available to its credit from the taxable value which can be seen from the statements prepared and furnished by their Chartered Accountant for the period from April, 2013 to March, 2014 and for 2014, 2015 and 2016 for all 4 quarters of those financial years, copy of which was annexed to his written submission dated 14.02.2025, in which clear deduction of CENVAT Credit in each quarters is reflected and therefore, the findings of the Commissioner that credits were availed after six months or one year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the period permissible to issue show-cause-cum-demand notice is taken into consideration vis. a. vis. provision available under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, it is 'service of notice', from which date computation of period of limitation is to be counted backward, and in so doing, there will be no hesitation on the part of this Bench to give a finding that for the period from April, 2013 to September, 2014, the demands are barred by limitation, though Appellant had also contested invocation of extended period on other justifiable grounds. Admittedly, Appellant had not shown in its periodic ST-3 Returns that it had adjusted the available CENVAT Credits towards discharge of Service Tax liability but every payment of balance tax th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
