2013 (4) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 4,62,089/- on outward Goods Transport Agency services from the cenvat credit account during the month May 2009 to December 2009.The appellant is not output service provider and hence cannot pay service tax on outward GTA services from their cenvat credit account. Therefore, show cause notice dated 08.3.2010 was issued to them and after due process of law, vide impugned order the Assistant Commissioner confirmed Rs. 4,62,089/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty. The Assistant Commissioner has also appropriated the amount of Rs. 4,62,089/-deposited by the appellant on 07.1.2011. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority, after considering the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that the appeal is directed only against imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and confirmation of demand of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that there is no dispute as to the fact that during the relevant period i.e. April 2009 to December 2009 the appellant utilised the cenvat credit for discharge of service tax liability on the GTA services as recipient of said services. Appellant is manufacturer of cables and discharges duty liability on the finished goods manufactured and cleared by them. At this juncture, I find that appellant has made good the government dues by paying the amount of service tax liability on the GTA services, and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f of the respondents has agreed to pay in cash to end the litigation. I also note that by reversing the Cenvat credit, the appellant was not retaining any money belonging to the Government and by payment in cash and reversal of debit entry, only procedural irregularity was rectified. The liability of interest has been prescribed where the appellant retains the money which may be due to be paid to the Government which is not the case here. I find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned Consultant. Strictly going by the law, interest may be due, but the fact remains that by reversing the Cenvat credit, the respondents had committed a procedural irregularity only and therefore reversal of the same and payment in cash would ....