TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in-Original dated 23.05.2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Dibrugarh, for the period October 2009 to March 2011. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing taxable services under the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services and is registered with the Service Tax Department for payment of service tax. In the course of audit, it was found that the appellant, apart from rendering the aforesaid taxable services to Electricity Board, has also supplied materials like RCC Poles, conductors, angles, etc under separate contract for which payments were made separately by the Electricity Board, although the said goods have admittedly been used in the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit Rules, 2004. He submitted that the assessee is not contesting its case on merits but solely on limitation inasmuch as the entire details were duly submitted in the service tax returns filed with the Department which not only the Ld. Commissioner failed to consider but also did not deal with in the adjudication order. He relied on various decisions of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that when details of credit have duly been disclosed, there cannot be any case of suppression and longer period of limitation is not invokable. He also submitted that since balance credit was already reversed without contesting the matter, it could not be said that the credit amount was wrongly utilised and therefore, the question of charging of inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is no evidence to the contrary to prove that credit has been willfully availed to defraud the Revenue. In the instant case, we observe that the SCN has not shown any positive evidence to prove wilful fraud or suppression to justify invocation of extended period of limitation. 8. We take note of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II [2014 (48) taxmann.com 99 (New Delhi-CESTAT), wherein it has been held that: "2. Without going into the merits of the case, I find that the Revenue has invoked the longer period of limitation by simplicitor observing that the appellant has not disclosed the nature of the service in respect of which credit was availed. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the ....