TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate CENVAT Credit as per Section 6(3)(ii) of the Credit Rules. Petitioner had obtained Centralized Service Tax Registration Number STC No. AAACE1237CST011 under Section 69 of the Finance Act read with the Rules. Petitioner's revenue from operations in India is from sale of tickets, re-issue of tickets by alteration of original tickets and excess baggage tickets. Petitioner pays service tax on the tickets booked in India from passengers embarking on journeys in India but does not pay any service tax on tickets booked in India for passengers embarking on journeys outside India as according to the Petitioner, it is not the service provider for such journeys. Petitioner also discharges service tax on tickets booked outside India by passengers embarking on journeys in India. According to the Petitioner, service tax liability arises on the basis of where the journey originates and not where the tickets are sold. 3. Pursuant to a EA-2000 Audit the Petitioner was instructed by the Audit wing of the Respondents to submit details of tickets booked in India where place of embarkation was outside India and Cenvat Registers for the period April 2014 to June 2017. It is the case of the Petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 77 of the Finance Act for failure to disclose the exempted turnover in the prescribed Service Tax returns (Form ST-3) as prescribed under Section 70 of the Finance Act read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules. i) The Petitioner was liable to penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act read with Rule 15(3) of the Credit Rules." 6. In reply to the show cause notice, Petitioner requested for re-quantification of the demand pointing out certain errors and also filed a detailed reply dated 19 November 2019. Thereafter, a personal hearing was granted by Respondent no.2 on 16 February 2022 by virtual mode which was duly attended by the authorized representative of the Petitioner, where the Petitioner's representative is stated to have reiterated the reply to the show cause notice. 7. Mr. Darius Shroff, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, would submit that at the said hearing it was specifically pointed out that there was a mistake in the computation of demand and that while calculating the demand, the value of exempted service of transport of cargoes was not taken into consideration as also the total amount reversed as shown in the ST-3 returns. Learned Senior Counsel woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l made and shown in the SCN. The Noticee has claimed they they have reversed am amount of Rs. 76,75,94,686/- while the department in the SCN has stated that the quantum of reversal made is Rs. 38,85,31,421/-. The reason for these variations is not forthcoming from the Noticee. Also, it is noticed that there are variations in the reversals effected by the Noticee as declared to the Auditors and as declared in the written submissions to the SCNs without any satisfactory explanation to it. The Noticee has submitted mere tabulations of the reversal made, and the cenvat credit liable to be reversed by them without any documentary evidence or a verification and certification by a Chartered Accountant. From the available records before me I am unable to figure out the exact reversals made by the Noticee and as to whether the reversals made are related to this particular demand of the SCN. The Noticee other than mere tabulations and recreation of Cenvat register on excel sheet has not furnished any supporting evidence to substantiate their claims. The Noticee has just furnished figures of reversal made each Financial Year without detailing as to how the figures are arrived at vis-a-vis the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions dated 17 February 2022, he draws our attention to Item 13.1.3.7 as well as 13.2.3.4 (page 21/23). 12. The learned Senior Counsel also refers to paragraph 2.9 of the reply to the show cause notice as well as 2.13 to demonstrate the difference in computation of the total Cenvat Credit as per the show cause notice and the credit already reversed in the Rule 6(3) as per the ST-3 Returns with respect to the various periods under consideration. 13. Mr. Shroff would urge this Court to remand the matter of computation to Respondent no. 2 as Petitioner was only accorded a personal hearing on virtual mode on 28 April 2022 and no personal hearing was granted despite the offer by the Petitioner despite the Adjudicating Authority's inability to appreciate the computation in the Returns furnished. 14. On the other hand, Mr. J.B. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent Authority would submit that Petitioner has an alternate remedy against the impugned Order-in-Original and cannot be permitted to side step the same in the garb of personal hearing not having been granted as the same was granted by virtual mode on 28 April 2022 and Order-in-Original has been passed after considering all t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the computation of the demand, that while calculating the demand, value of exempted service of transportation of cargoes was not taken into consideration and that the Petitioner had offered that his personnel Shri Gaurav would approach the department to explain the workings when called for. This has been, as noted above, recorded in paragraph 3.7 of the Order-in-Original. Despite the aforesaid, the Adjudicating Authority has gone ahead and passed the Order-in-Original without calling for the assistance despite the offer made on behalf of the Petitioner. And now in the affidavit in reply and at the time of hearing, the Respondent Authority cannot now take an obstinate stand that the offer of the Petitioner with respect to its personnel Shri Gaurav was only a suggestion from the Petitioner to explain the workings when called for, which meant that if the Adjudicating Authority required any explanation on the written or oral submissions made by the Petitioner before the Adjudicating Authority, the same would have been called for but the same was not mandatory on the part of the Adjudicating Authority if the written and oral submissions were sufficient to conclude the proceedings a....