TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....84,008/- along with equivalent penalty and interest thereon arising out of the alleged irregular availment of Cenvat credit of service tax for the period 2012-13 to 2014-15. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant holds a service tax registration for provision of coal mining services at Borjora Durgapur Coal Block, since 24th March, 2013, pursuant to a subcontract awarded by M/s. Trans Damodar Coal Mining Private Limited (the main contractor), who in turn was awarded the main contract by M/s. West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Limited, a State Government enterprise. 3. During the relevant period i.e. 24.03.2013 to 31.03.2015, the Appellant had discharged an aggregate output service tax liabi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Premature utilization of CENVAT Credit of the tax paid on GTA Services in April 2015 Rs. 2,59,185 TOTAL Rs. 12,46,43,193 The Notice also proposes imposition of equivalent penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules ('CCR') along with a late fee of Rs. 16,500/- for the delayed submission of the ST-3 returns for the period October 2014 to March 2015. 4. Although, save and except an amount of Rs. 1,68,65,339/- involving Cenvat credit of Rs. 18,55,247/- alone remain unpaid to the service providers prior to adjudication duly accepted at para 12 of the Order-in-Original itself, the learned Commissioner confirmed the entire demand comprised in Issue No. 1 on the purported ground of non-production of evidence by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rendered in Manohar Lal Sharma case reported in 2014 (9) SCC 614. Having already paid the value of input service along with service tax thereon, it was emphasized that the Appellant was entitled to the credit of service tax under the 2nd proviso to Rule 4(7) itself and that no additional purpose would be served if the Appellant was still made to pay the amount under the 2nd proviso to Rule 4(7) and again claim refund of the credit arising thereunder in view of the introduction of GST. C. Our attention was also invited to the Circular No.990/14/2014-CX dated 19 November 2014 inter alia, clarifying that the time limit was not applicable to the re-credit arising under the proviso to Rule 4(7) of the 'CCR' and the decisions of the Tribunal r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngle service tax registration under the Finance Act and that too for provision of mining services at one particular mine site only. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant had received the services of M/s G.S. Atwal & Co and that such services were used for provision of mining services. The credit involved in 12 the invoices raised by the Vendor could not have been taken under any other service tax registration of the Appellant as there was none. Therefore, reflection of the mining site address in the invoice of the Vendor as opposed to the registered office of the Appellant is at best a procedural/technical breach for which a substantive benefit should not be denied. Reference in this regard is invited to the following decisions: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to the twelve Vendors captured in RUD-7 of the Notice involving a Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,90,332/-only. Therefore, strictly speaking this is not a case of failure to pay but only a case of delayed payment. The reasons for such delay in payment has been attributed to the cancellation of 214 Coal Blocks including the one being worked upon by the Appellant in August/September 2014 consequent to the Landmark Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma case (supra). The 2nd proviso to Rule 4(7) of the CCR, which has been alleged to be violated in the present case, reads as under: Provided further that in case the payment of the value of input service and the service tax paid or payable as indicated in the invoice, bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing violation of the proviso to Rule 4(7) of the CCR for the period post 1 April 2011, fully supports this view. The ratio of the decisions rendered in Deevya Shakti Paper case (supra) in the context of premature availment of Cenvat credit on capital goods and M/s. Munjal Shova Case (supra) in the context of pre-amended Rule 4(7) of the CCR i.e. prior to 1 April 2011 when credit eligibility itself arose on payment basis, are also to the same effect. On a query from the bench, the learned A/R for the Appellant confirms that the value of input service involving cenvat credit of Rs. 3,90,332 remains unpaid and to that extent the demand has to be confirmed. 8. We find that the adjudicating authority did travel beyond the Notice in so far as ....