TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gathered that they are not discharging service tax on the payments received from outside India under the category of 'Consulting Engineer Service', the appellant was directed to pay the service tax. The appellant discharged service tax along with interest before issue of show cause notice. On verification of records, it was found that the appellant had availed wrong credit on inputs. The inputs rejected were removed out of the factory for testing and thereafter brought into the factory. The appellant did not reverse the credit of these inputs which were removed out of the factory for testing and when they were brought back into the factory they again availed credit on the same inputs. The third issue raised against the appellant wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order-in-Original under protest. The ld. counsel argued that the department has alleged suppression of fact in the third issue when actually there was only a delay of 15 days to discharge service tax liability. The returns were yet to be filed in the month of April. Prior to filing of returns, there cannot be any allegation of suppression. Further that delay to pay the service tax cannot be considered as suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. She submitted that the original authority though granted the benefit of reduced penalty as per the proviso to section 78 has confirmed the equal penalty of all the three issues. The ld. counsel requested to set aside the penalty in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ought to have been issued to the appellant. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.) has held that issue of show cause notice when entire amount along with interest stands paid is incorrect and bad in law. Following the same, we hold that the penalty imposed for this issue requires to be set aside which we hereby do. 6. The second issue is with regard to availment of CENVAT credit twice on the same Bill of Entry. The ld. counsel has submitted that due to oversight, when the inputs were removed out of the factory for testing, the credit was not reversed. The appellant has thereafter availed credit on the very same inputs when the....