2022 (4) TMI 563

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the said Company are to provide expertise including IT consultancy, in the field of e-Governance, project conceptualisation and implementation, capacity building in the IT area, provision of customized IT solutions spanning hardware as well as software projects, GIS development and multimedia development. The said company works as a wing of the Government and the Principal Secretary, IT&C, Government of Rajasthan, is the Chairman of the company. Thus, the said company is the State designated agency for implementation of projects under National e-Governance Plan, etc. 2. The appellant is registered with the Service Tax Department and maintains proper records and have been filing their periodical return, which fact is not disputed. 3. S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in their books of accounts and register as on 01.04.2014. Therefore, the differential amount of Rs. 3,27,503/- appears to have been taken excess credit, wrongly. 6. Learned Counsel further explains that this amount was due to the error of omission while accounting the input credit. The return for the period half yearly ending 31.03.2014 was filed, was due on 25.04.2014 and the last date for revising the same was 24.07.2014. However, as the audit was under progress and the accounts of appellant were finalised on 03.09.2014, only at that time the error in taking the credit short and found out, and accordingly the appellant took the balance credit pertaining to the financial year 2013-14 in the books of accounts and cenvat credit register. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from the aforementioned observations, there is total dereliction of duty in passing a reasoned order in accordance with law, as the appellant submitted that they have already paid the duty. It was the duty of the Commissioner (Appeals) to get verified such claims. Under no circumstances, such claim of the appellant can be rejected summarily by a non-speaking order. The appellant has also contested the show cause notice as bad, for the period April, 2012 to March, 2015, for invoking extended period of limitation, under the facts and circumstances. 12. On the issue of limitation, I find that the only allegation in the show cause notice is that the show cause notice is issued pursuant to AG audit. It is further observed that had the audit ....