2018 (8) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate Tribunal, Allahabad whereby the Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee. 2. Following question of law has been framed for answering by this Court:- "Whether the CESTAT has committed an error of law in deciding the issue of limitation, especially on account of strong documentary evidence provided by the department?" 3. The respondent M/s Zee News Ltd is engaged in news business and in the business of broadcasting other entertainment programs. It is registered with the department for payment of service tax on providing services of Broadcasting Franchise & Renting of immovable property. The Commissioner (Excise), Noida issued a show cause notice (hereinafter referred to as 'SCN') dated 3....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in respect of aforementioned channels thus, were transferred to M/s Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited. 5. On examination of Cenvat accounts, it was noticed that the respondent had taken credit of input service in respect of outgoing six channels transferred to M/s Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited. Therefore, the audit had bifurcated the credit for the period January, 2010 to March, 2010 which involves credit of input service relating to the six channels to the tune of Rs. 6,67,92,233/- out of total credit aggregating to Rs. 8,47,08,673/-. 6. It was said that Cenvat Credit, amounting to Rs. 6,67,92,233/- was inadmissible and it was taken in contravention of Rule 9(2) of Cenval Credit Rules, 1994. The respondent was, therefore....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....N was issued after eighteen months limitation period invoking the extended period of limitation. The reason given for invoking the extended period was that above facts came to the notice of the Department only during scrutiny of records e.g. ledger, balance sheet, invoices, cenvat credit accounts etc., maintained by the respondent and such details were not disclosed to the department at any stage in any report or returns and thus, the respondent had suppressed the facts and the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was applicable to the instant case. 9. The assessee took the stand that they had never suppressed or misrepresented any fact relating to the availment of Cenvet credit from the Department. The respondent had been m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t could not allege suppression by the respondent. 12. Commissioner (Excise) adjudicated the SCN and vide order dated 19.03.2014 rejected the claim of the respondent on merits and confirmed the payment of Rs. 45,23,799/- for service tax and Rs. 6,67,92,233/- for wrongly availing Cenvat credit by the respondent. He also imposed the penalty of the equal amount alongwith the interest. 13. With respect to invocation of extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act, it was held that the respondent suppressed the vital information in their statutory returns and, therefore, the ingredients of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act specifically existed in the case of the respondent and rejected the objection of the respo....