2017 (6) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng under heading Information Technology Software Services as defined under Section 65(105)(zzzze) of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondents have obtained registration in October 2010. On verification of the record and e-file returns of the respondent, it was noticed that they had availed the CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs. 14,60,982/- for the period prior to taking registration, which is not permissible and thereby having short-paid the service tax due to the tune of Rs. 4,43,089/- for the period from March 2009 to March 2011. The assessee had also wrongly paid through CENVAT credit an amount of Rs. 5,08,511/- for the services provided from outside India and received in India by them on reverse charge basis in terms of Section 68(2). On ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... evidence on record and by ignoring the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the assessee has availed the CENVAT credit even without registration which is mandatory condition for availing the CENVAT credit. He further submitted that the assessee has wrongly utilized the CENVAT credit towards payment of service tax on import of services. He also submitted that assessee did not disclose all this information with an intention to evade payment of duty and therefore, the extended period was rightly invoked. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order and submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has discussed at length all the issues involved in the case along with the relevant case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e tax. He also submitted that Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 specifically allows a service provider or a manufacturer to avail credit attributable to exports and utilize such credit towards payment of service tax or duty or excise on local clearances or claim refund of it if such credit remains unutilized. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: i. Repro India Ltd. Vs. UOI: 2009 (235) ELT 614 (Bom.) ii. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2011 (265) ELT 358 (Tri.-Bang.) iii. Commissioner Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd.: 2010 (254) ELT 417 (HP) iv. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 1995 (79) ELT 111 (Tri.-Del.) v. Lloyds Metal & Engineers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai-III: 2002 (147) ELT 255 (Tri.-Mum.) vi. Jodhpur Supply Company Vs. CCE: 2001....