TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucted by the Service Tax Commissionerate, a show-cause notice dated 13/11/2017 was issued to the Appellant demanding Service Tax as below: (i) Rs.5,09,45,857/- on account of Late Payment Charges collected. (ii) Rs. 2,29,621/- and Rs 9264/- on account of non-reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules.. (iii) Rs 20,14,912/- on account of Trading of Scrips on own account. (iv) 17,72,562/- on account of reimbursement expenses. 2. The Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner videOrder-in-Original dated 25.04.2018, confirming the above said demands along with interest and penalties. Aggrieved against the impugned order the Appellant is before us. We now discuss each of the demands sep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be said that by collecting the said penal charges, the Appellant has tolerated the non-performance of the contract by the other party. 3.4 They also stated that collection of Late Payment Charges were in the knowledge of the Department inasmuch as the demand for the prior period has already been dropped by the Ld. Commissioner vide OIO dated 29.07.2016 and therefore, the extended period of limitation is not available. 3.5 The Ld DR reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. 3.6 We observe that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd cited by the Appellant is squarely applicable in this case. The gist of the order is reproduced below: Liquidated damages/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Act, 1994. We observe that the said decisionhas been accepted by Board in as much as the Civil Appeal No 2372 of 2021 filed before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has been decided to be withdrawn, as communicated in Circular No 214/1/2023-Sercice tax dated 28.02.2023. 3.8 In view of the above discussion, we hold that the demand confirmed in the impugned order on Late Payment Charges amounting to Rs 5,09,45,857/- is not sustainable. 4. Credit reversal under Rule 6 of Credit Rules - imposition of Penalty of Rs.34,443/- and Rs 1390/- 4.1 The Appellant stated that they have accepted the demand made on account of non-reversal of credit under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004, and deposited an amount of Rs.2,29,621/- along with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication, Renting of immovable property etc, the Appellant was asked to pay an amount equal to 6% or 7% of the value of exempted service under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 5.2 The Appellant stated that even if trading of scrip on own account is considered as exempted service, they are liable to reverse only the proportional credit attributable to common input services. Accordingly, they have calculated the proportional credit liable to be reversed and deposited an amount of Rs.4,54,869/- along with interest of Rs.3,30,897/-. In the impugned order the adjudicating authority has not given any finding for rejection of this payment by the Appellant. The adjudicating authority only said that the Appellant‟s own calculation no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and of Rs.17,72,562/- on account of reimbursement of expenses from group companies on cost sharing basis. 6.1 The Appellant stated that the expenses claimed as reimbursement from the sister companies on cost sharing basis has not been disputed by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned Order..They stated that major amount of reimbursement pertains to electricity charges and the reimbursement charges has nothing to do with provision of any taxable service. They contended that sharing of expenditure between group companies cannot be treated as service rendered to one another. In support of this claim, they cited the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. and decision of th....