TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit of certain input services to the tune of Rs. 40,32,973/- during the period from 2011-12 to 2013-14 which according to the department was ineligible as their activity was normally trading. Show-cause notice was issued proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit along with interest and also for imposing penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest imposed penalty under section 78(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Ms. Vishnu Priya appeared and argued the matter. She submitted that the appellant is not contesting the confirmation of demand on merits. She argued t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and had disclosed details of the credit in their accounts. This would go to show that the allegation that appellants have suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of tax is factually incorrect. The department has issued earlier a show-cause notice dated 09.10.2013 in respect of the GTA Services for the period Oct.'11 to Mar.'12 invoking extended period. In the present show-cause notice dated 04.01.2017 which is for the period Apr.'11 to Mar.'14 is also issued invoking extended period. Therefore, this second show-cause notice would be hit by the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Nizam Sugar Factory Vs Collector of Central Excise, A.P., reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R.314 (S.C.). With regard to late fee, she submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that the entire credit availed by them during the disputed period was reflected by the appellants in these returns. However, the present show-cause notice dated 04.01.2017 has been issued again invoking the extended period for the period Apr.'11 to Mar.'14 alleging availment of wrong credit. The period in both the show-cause notices are overlapping. In para 31 of Order-in-Original, the Assistant Commissioner has noted that the appellant has maintained proper books of accounts during the disputed period, wherein, the entries relating to the credit availed on input services have been clearly reflected. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced:- "According to the first proviso to section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 where the details relat....