2018 (2) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....OM-015-2014-15 dated 30/03/2015. The appellant is engaged in the activities of online information and data services, renting of immovable property services etc. They also have registration as an Input Service Distributor. They availed credit of service tax paid on various services and capital goods under provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was noticed by the Department, during the course of audit, that in a few cases, the appellant has wrongly availed CENVAT credit twice on the basis of the same document. On being pointed out by the audit, the appellant reversed the wrongly availed CENVAT credit along with interest. The Department proceeded to issue show-cause notice and vide the impugned order not only upheld the service tax paid a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt that 25% of the penalty was liable to be paid since the case was not covered under Section 73(3) as claimed by the appellant but the same was covered under Section 73(4A) of the Finance Act. i. United Communication, Udupi Vs. CCE, Mangalore-III [2012(281) ELT 168 (Kar.)] ii. S.S. Service Providers Vs. CCE&ST, Chandigarh [2017(47) STR 266 (Tri. Chan.)] 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The wrongly availed CENVAT credit is not being disputed by the appellant and the same has been reversed with interest as soon as the same has been pointed out by the Department. However the appellant agitates against the imposition of penalty. It stands further argued by the appellant in the appeal papers that the inten....