2019 (2) TMI 855

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hined components falling under Chapter 73 and 74 of CETA, 1985 and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit. The brief fact of the case is that during the course of audit by departmental officer, it is noticed that the appellant have not paid service tax on Manpower Recruitment and Supply/Security services during the period from January 2013 to January 2014 inasmuch as the service provider of these services have raised invoices in the name of the appellant. The service provider paid the service tax on 25% of the value of the service. The appellant being a service receiver has not paid service tax on the 75% of the assessable value of security service/manpower service on reverse charge mechanism. On being pointed out, the appellant paid se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he service tax, they took the CENVAT credit of service tax paid by them. The said fact was also informed by them to the Department vide their letter dated 24.4.2014 and 21.8.2014 and the said facts were also declared in their ST-3 Returns and ER-1 Returns for the relevant period. He further submitted that all the relevant facts were known to the Department within normal limitation period and therefore, invoking extended period of limitation alleging suppression is not tenable in law. He also submitted that bar under Rule 9(i)(bb) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable in this case and is applicable only to those supplementary invoices, bill or challan issued by provider of output service to pass on the credit of service tax which he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3) ELT 299 (Mad.) • Persistent System Ltd. vs. CCE: 2019 (45) STR 17 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that bar under Rule 9(i)(bb) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable to the transaction where service receiver is paying service tax under reverse charge mechanism on GAR-7 challan and is taking the credit thereof on the basis of said challan. Further, I find that in the case of Polygenta Technologies Ltd., this Rule has been upheld and assessee was held entitled to take the credit. Further, I find that in the present case, there cannot be any suppression to evade the tax once ....