TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice division), on 01.11.2013, the by way of a slump sale. Thereafter, the Appellant availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on common input services on proportionate basis, by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3)(ii) of Credit Rules; Department was aware of this fact as audit was conducted for the period of 01.04.2010 to 31.12.2012. Appellants, vide letter dated 31.03.2014, intimated Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax that during Financial Year 2013-14, they were following the procedure under Rule 6(3)(ii) of Credit Rules and hence were not maintaining any separate books of accounts for inputs/ input services used for taxable and exempted services; appellant further informed that with effect from 01.04.2014, that they will be opting for Rule 6(2) of the Credit Rules and accordingly would be maintaining separate books of accounts. 2.1. During the audit conducted for the period 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2014, revenue alleged that the Appellant had taken Cenvat credit of entire tax paid on common input services and as the appellant was not maintaining separate records for inputs used exclusively for exempted services, they would be liable to pay an amount calculated as per Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 58,50,576/-, demand of Cenvat credit of Rs. 24,90,48,925/- is inappropriate. Learned Commissioner, CGST also appropriated and confirmed the Cenvat credit reversal amounting to Rs. 2,01,12,578/- on the basis that substantial part of Rule 6(3)(ii) of Credit Rules has been followed by the Appellant. 2.3. The Range Superintendent vide letter dated 09.02.2017 sought details of exempted services and directed the Appellant to explain as to how Housekeeping Services were treated as an input service; Appellant vide letter dated 21.02.2017 explained that such Housekeeping Services were used against trading of goods and selling of space or time slots for advertisement i.e. both taxable and exempted services and hence proportionate reversal was done by Appellant. A Show-cause Notice dated 07.04.2017 (impugned SHOW CAUSE NOTICE) was issued to Appellant denying the Cenvat Credit of Rs. 72,00,000/- on input services used exclusively for rendering exempted services. 2.4. The present Show-cause Notice, dated 07.04.2017, was adjudicated by Joint Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original, dated 15.02.2019, without taking into consideration the order passed in favour of the Appellant vide Order-in-Origi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued when another Show Cause Notice, dated 29.03.2016, was already issued, on the basis of very same objection, vide audit memo dated 21.08.2014,and decided; as facts were in the knowledge of the department, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 5. Learned Counsel submits further that Show Cause Notice cannot be issued on the basis of audit objections as held in Sharma Fabricators and Erectors Pvt Ltd2017-TIOL-3191-CESTAT-ALL (affirmed by the Hon‟ble High Court 2019-TIOL-492-HC-ALL-CX) and in Shree Uma Foundries Pvt Ltd2008 (222) ELT 317; Show Cause Notice has to clearly bring out the case against Appellant and the onus to establish that an Assessee has short paid/ not paid/ evaded tax proper evidence, calculations and documents,is on the Department; in the present case, no information, documents, working and evidence was brought out; it has been held, by Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in a plethora of cases, that the Show Cause Notice is the foundation for judicial proceedings and the basic requirement to be followed is the principles of natural justice; an opportunity to defend is denied if the Show Cause Noticeis issued without reasoning or without specific groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment who alleges such mala fide intent entire demand is barred time as per Section 73 of the Act. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty can be imposed. He relies on the following. M/s Anand Nishikawa Co Ltd 2005-TIOL-118-SC-CX Ajay Mishra 2023 (386) E.L.T. 310 (Tri- Del.) Arya Logistics 2024 (80) G.S.T.L. 108 (Tri-Ahmd.) Continental Foundation J. Venture 2007(216) E.L.T. 177 (SC) Nizam Sugar Factory 1999 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co 1995 Supp (3) SCC 462 PVR Ltd 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 435 (Tri- Del.) Uniworth Textiles Ltd 2013(288) ELT 161 (SC) ShahnazAyurvedics 2004(173) ELT 337 (All.) H.M.M. Limited, 1995 (76) ELT 497 (SC) Pratibha Processors 1996 (88) ELT 12 (SC) 7. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned orders. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The impugned order rejected the appeal filed by the appellants on the grounds of delay. The appellant submits that theimpugned order was received 25.02.2019. accordingly, appeal was required to be filed by 25.04.2019; there was a delay in arranging the finances by the appellant; the....