TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice tax liability. Accordingly show cause notice was issued. It is the case of the revenue that on scrutiny of ST-3 Returns for the period April, 2006 to September, 2006 and for the period October, 2006 to March, 2007, it is noticed that there have been short payment in some months and excess payment in some other months. The Adjudicating Authority passed the following order: "I find that the demand has been issued as the formalities for provisional assessment has not been adhered to in terms of the provision of the law. But the fact remains that the said assessee should pay Service Tax only on the value realized by them, After going through the records and documents submitted by the said assessee and considering allegations of the Show C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 7,61,86,136/- for the month of September'06 and March'07. So there is total excess payment of Rs. 94,22,954/- during the period 2006-07. The explanation forwarded by the said assessee in this respect is accepted. So the demand of the Service Tax including Education Cess amounting to Rs. 1,02,95,650/- for the period 2006-07 is not sustainable. Consequently there is no question of penalty and interest. The second issue is the allegation of availment of irregular CENVAT credit on capital goods amounting to Rs. 77,50,386/- during the period 2006-07. The said assessee were required to avail 50% of the Central Excise Duty paid on the capital goods against each invoice/voucher receipt during 2006-07. The said assessee inadvertently availed 100....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent assessee inspite of issuance of notice. No request for adjournment has been received. Since the matter is very old i.e. pertaining to the year 2009, the appeal is taken up for disposal. 3. Heard ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 4. The Revenue in their grounds of appeal have submitted as under: "It may be a fact that the assessee availed of 100% of the duty paid on capital goods in respect of some invoices inadvertently, but this irregularity cannot be equated with the fact of non-availing of Cenvat Credit in respect of other invoices in a financial year. Since the assessee took 100% credit of duty paid on capital goods in same financial year violating the provision of Rul....