2018 (3) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. 2. Ld. Counsel for M/s. Venkateshwara Earthmovers argued that they were involved in mining activity and were receiving service tax payments along with service tax but had not filed ST.3 returns during the period 1.6.2007 to 31.3.2010. They were not maintained prescribed records under the Service Tax Rules. On being pointed out after investigation by Goa, Regional Unit by DGCEI, the appellant filed the Service Tax Return for the period June 2007 to March 2010 on 26.5.2010 and 22.6.2010. He pointed out that show cause notice was issued alleging that they had not paid service tax during the period. Ld. Counsel argued that though they had not filed ST-3 Returns but they were maintaining records by which they were entitled to the credit of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s correct. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. For the purpose of justifying the demand of interest, he relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering Corporation Ltd. 2014-TIOL-2020-CESTAT-MUM. 3.1. Ld. AR further pointed out that there was a clear default on the part of the appellant as they had not discharged duty liability and therefore penalty under Section 76 & 78 is justified. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions the impugned order relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Toyo Engineering Ltd. 2014-TIOL-2020-CESTAT-MUM to upholds the demand of interest. In the said decision the following has been observed as under: "5. We have carefull....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g us a return in this regard. Duty paid by the appellant for input/input services does not automatically become cenvat credit at the hands of the appellant. In this regard the decision of Tribunal in the case of Toyo Engineering Corporation Ltd. (supra) becomes applicable to this situation. In view of above the appeal of M/s. Venkateshwara Earthmovers is dismissed. 5. In so far as the appeal of revenue is concerned it has been urged in the grounds of appeal that the appellant M/s, Venkatshwara Earthmovers recovering the service tax amount from the service receiver and therefore were mandatorily required to discharge their duty liability. M/s. Venkateshwara Earthmovers have failed to file return for a period of almost three years. The fac....