2011 (3) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payable on output services, since they were not maintaining separate accounts. During the month of February, 2005, they were required to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 6,56,651/-. As such, they were entitled to utilize cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,31,096/- only whereas, in contravention of the rules they have utilized cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,62,426/-. It is the allegation of the department that the said branch of the SBI did not disclose to the department that they are providing exempted output service also and that they have taken service tax in excess of the admissible 20% amount. This was only detected when the accounts of the SBI were audited by the departmental audit officers. As such, the impugned show cause notice has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Pharmaceuticals Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC), which holds that the act of the assessees must be deliberate to invoke longer period of limitation. He supports the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority. 5. After hearing both sides, I find that the law relating to limitation in the context of service tax has been well spelt out under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. It provides that longer period of limitation can be invoked if service tax has not been paid by reason of "(a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) willful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of fact; or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made there-under with intent to evade payment o....