TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 for such supplies made for setting up of water treatment plants for human or animal consumption. It also undertakes turnkey contracts mostly for municipal corporation for laying down of pipelines for which Service Tax payment was exempted. During internal audit made by Central Excise Officer, it was observed that appellant had not maintained separate accounts for both taxable as well as exempted manufacturing and services between 2008-09 and 2012-13 as per Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appellant accepted the audit objection and paid the amount of Rs. 11,43,308/- @ 6% of the value of services and also paid interest of Rs. 7,18,120/- for delayed payment of said amount but was subsequently pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ELT 308 (T) - TELCO (viii) 2008 (232) ELT 621 (T) - Wipteh Peripherals (ix) Aditya College of Competitive Exam Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2009 (16) STR 154 (Tri.-Bang.) Further, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no suppression of facts, mis-declaration of facts on the part of the appellant for which proviso to Section 78(1) of Finance Act, 1994 was to be invoked and as the duty is paid voluntarily under Section 11A(2), the proceeding initiated on the basis of show-cause notice erroneous, for which he prays for setting aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 4. In response to such submissions, Ms. Anuradha Parabh, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent-department has argued on the strength of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that despite having the knowledge of obligation for payment of an amount under Rule 6(3), appellant did not pay the same till detected by the department and therefore suppression was established. However, wrong filling of appropriate column in ST-3 returns coupled with payment of Service Tax towards services provided to municipal corporation would clearly indicate that appellant had mis-conceived the provision of law may be due to an erroneous interpreted and paid Service Tax in respect of services provided to municipal corporation which is exempted as well as availed CENVAT credit on that score. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant had improperly filled up ST-3 returns as 'NO' for availment of exempted services but by no stretch o....