Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether CENVAT credit utilised by the assessee could be treated as inadmissible for payment of service tax dues under the voluntary compliance scheme, and whether the demand required reconsideration on the basis of documentary proof of tax already paid by cash or credit.
Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had utilised CENVAT credit during the relevant period before filing the declaration under the scheme, and that the declaration was stated to have been settled by cash deposit. The restriction in Rule 6(2) operated only in relation to tax dues, and tax dues under the scheme were confined to unpaid service tax or amounts payable under section 73A. A return showing nil payment could not, by itself, displace documentary proof that tax had in fact been discharged. The proper course was to examine the registers, worksheets, and other proof to ascertain which portion of the liability was already paid and which portion, if any, remained unpaid.
Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained on the basis of the presumption adopted in the original order, and the matter had to be re-examined by the original authority on the documentary evidence, with the impugned order set aside and the matter remanded.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the voluntary compliance scheme, the bar on utilisation of CENVAT credit applies only to unpaid tax dues, and a liability must be determined on actual proof of payment rather than on an erroneous or incomplete return.