TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Section 78 of the Finance Act and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Section 77 and penalty under Section 70 for non-filing Returns is also confirmed. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are having Service Tax Registration for providing "Management or Business Consultant Service and Consulting Engineer Services". The officers of the anti-evasion unit of the department gathered intelligence that there were several inter linked companies of M/s. Nitesh Estates who provided various taxable services but have not discharged their tax liability. Search were conducted at the premises of M/s. Somrest Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Southern Hills Developers and certain documents were recovered. The document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-Original dated 09.10.2017 confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 14,20,564/- along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected the appeal of the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the documentary evidences on record. He further submitted that the only condition for availing credit is that the assessee must be a manufacturer or a service provider as per Rule 3(1) and there is no condition either regarding registration or regarding filing Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit of Rs. 8,03,400/- was availed on 13.03.2014 which is prior to issuance of Notification No. 21/2014-CE dated 11.07.2014 and therefore the period of six months which was introduced by the said Notification will not be applicable in the present case. The amendment made by way of Notification will come into force from the date of Notification unless the Notification specifically states that the provisions therein would have a retrospective effect. Since the credit was availed on an invoice dated prior to the Notification the said amendment would not apply and the impugned order relying on the time limit to deny the credit is therefore bad in law. He further submitted that the amendment vide Notification No. 21/2014-CE dated 11.07.2014 (w.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat they had provided detailed calculation clearly establishing that there was no short-payment whatsoever and that there were no dues pending to the Government but the both the authorities failed to consider the said computation. He further submitted that the findings in the impugned order are opposed to Rule 3(1) and 3(4) of CCR, 2004. Rule 3(1) which speaks of availment of credit does not lay down any condition that availment is subject to taking the credit in ST-3 Returns or ER-1 Returns. In fact, there is no condition laid down in the entire CCR, 2004 that availment of credit is subject to disclosure in ST-3 Returns but this submission has also not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order. He furth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment of tax by the appellant and therefore extended period has wrongly been invoked. He also submitted that once the appellant has paid the Service Tax, there was no need to issue the SCN and for this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE v. Adecco Flexione Workforcce Solutions Ltd., 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.) and CST v. Master Kleen, 2012 (25) STR 439 (kar.). 5. On the other hand, 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 denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 8,03,400/- availed by the appellant on 13.03.2014 was denied only on the ground that the same was availed after six months f....