AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the appellant under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 [the Voluntary 2013 Scheme] introduced in Chapter VI of the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 10.05.2013. 3. The appellant, a Rajasthan Government undertaking formed by merging the Rajasthan Energy Development Agency and the Rajasthan State Power Corporation Ltd., is a State Nodal Agency for promoting and developing non-conventional energy sources in the State of Rajasthan and is also a State Designated Agency for enforcement of the provisions of the Energy Conservation Act, 2001. The appellant co-ordinates the programme activities regarding non-conventional energy sources and is also engaged in creating awareness among people towards conservation of energy, protection of environment degradation through demonstration projects and other methods. To reduce the dependence on conventional sources of energy by promoting the development of non-conventional energy sources, the appellant works as a nodal agency for promotion and development of renewable energy sources under different policies issued by the Energy Department in the Government of Rajasthan. 4. In September 2013, the Audit team of the Servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how cause notice dated 23.12.2014 alleging the declaration filed by the appellant was 'substantially false' as the tax dues amount during the audit was Rs. 10,56,58,700/- and the appellant only declared Rs. 1,02,94,726/- as tax dues in the declaration. Thus, as the provisions of the Voluntary 2013 Scheme had been contravened, the declaration was liable to be rejected. The show cause notice also sought to recover the amount already proposed to be recovered in the earlier show cause notice dated 24.04.2014. The appellant filed a reply dated 31.12.2014. 8. The Commissioner, by order dated 22.01.2015, confirmed the demand proposed in the first show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation contemplated under section 73(1) of the Finance Act. 9. The second show cause notice was also adjudicated by the Commissioner by order dated 20.05.2016. As the recovery of amount had already been adjudicated, the Commissioner did not adjudicate upon the same in show cause notice and only examined the validity of the declaration made under the Voluntary 2013 Scheme. The Commissioner rejected the declaration finding it to be 'substantially false'. 10. Service Tax Appeal No. 51569 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) The appellant had discharged the service tax liability in accordance with the applicable legal provisions and there was no short-payment thereof; and (v) The extended period was not invokable and interest was not recoverable nor penalty was imposable. 14. Shri Rajeev Kapoor, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department supported the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly stated that if Service Tax Appeal No. 51569 of 2015 succeeds, then Service Tax Appeal No. 52471 of 2016 relating to the validity of the declaration would be rendered infructuous. 16. It would, therefore, be useful to first examine the submissions made in Service Tax Appeal No. 51569 of 2015 that has been filed to assail the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand proposed in the show cause notice dated 24.04.2014. 17. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the entire CENVAT credit availed by the appellant stood reversed, it would amount to non availment of CENVAT credit. It needs to be noted that the appellant had through three challans paid in cash the amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that electricity is not an 'exempted' and 'excisable' good. The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant was manufacturing 'electricity' which is an exempted good and, therefore, should have reversed 10%/6%/5% of the value of exempted goods i.e. electricity as the appellant had failed to follow the other options provided under rule 6 of the Credit Rules. The provisions of rule 6 of the Credit Rules show that the same come into picture only when the credit pertains to inputs or input services used in respect of both excisable and exempted product. In terms of rule 2(d) of the Credit Rules, 'exempted goods' can be categorized into three parts as under: (i) Excisable goods which are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon; (ii) Goods which are chargeable to nil rate of duty; and (iii) Goods in respect of which the benefit of an exempted under Notification No. 1/2011-C.E., dated the 1st of March, 2011 or under entries at serial numbers 67 and 128 of Notification No. 12/2012-C.E., dated the 17th March, 2012 is availed. 21. 'Excisable goods' has been defined in section 2(d) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner for accreditation and recommending the renewable energy projects for registration. Such accreditation is given either for a year or for lifetime. The appellant received charges in the form of one time accreditation charges for accrediting the applicant for lifetime and in the form of annual accreditation charges for accrediting the applicant for one year. Where a party permitted by the appellant to set up power plants, does not set up the same within the prescribed time period, the security deposit made by such party is forfeited. This amount is shown as 'forfeiture of security deposit' in books of account of the appellant. However, where the project is successfully completed, the said deposit is returned back to the party. The amount collected towards forfeiture of security deposit is not towards any service and, therefore, no service tax is payable. 26. The impugned order has also confirmed the demand of service tax for the period till 30.6.2012 on the ground that such charges were received towards BAS rendered by the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that these charges are not towards BAS deserves to be accepted. The definition of BAS under sectio....