TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals against Service Tax Credit Rejection Upheld</h1> <h3>Navdurga Ispat Pvt Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Raipur</h3> Navdurga Ispat Pvt Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Raipur - 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 111 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Appeal against demand of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax, imposition of penalties, excess availment of CENVAT Credit, payment of interest, imposition of penalty, applicability of case laws.Analysis:The appellant, M/s Navdurga Ispat Pvt Ltd., appealed against two orders confirming the demand of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax, along with penalties imposed. The issue revolved around the appellant being a service receiver and taking excess CENVAT Credit due to the service provider paying 100% instead of the required 25% of service tax. The excess CENVAT Credit amounted to Rs. 4,03,100/- and Rs. 2,35,709/- in the two appeals, leading to disallowance by lower revenue authorities and imposition of penalties equating to 50% of the confirmed demands.The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision in a similar case, while the Revenue cited various case laws to support their stance. After considering the submissions and case laws, the Member (Technical) concluded that the appellant was required to deposit 75% of the service tax as per a specific notification. Although the appellant reversed the 75% of CENVAT Credit initially taken, they failed to pay the interest on the confirmed demand. The issue of penalties arose, with the appellant arguing for their dismissal, countered by the Revenue highlighting the potential loss of excess service tax refund if not for the audit revealing the contravention by the appellant.Ultimately, the Member (Technical) found no merit in setting aside the penalties, as the appellant had not paid the interest on the confirmed demand, and the cited case laws did not support dropping the penalties. Consequently, both appeals were rejected, upholding the impugned orders and sustaining the penalties. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 18.01.2017.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
