2008 (9) TMI 218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tices. SCN dated 12-10-2006 demanded service tax of Rs. 7,64,38,858 from the appellants under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period April 2005 to March 2006 with interest thereon under section 75 of the Act and had also proposed penalty under section 78 of the Act. The break-up of the above demand was given in para 9 of the SCN which reads thus: "Whereas it appears that during 2005-06, the assessee have utilized Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,27,25,724 towards service tax payment for Leased Circuit Service Rs. 1,01,17,649 towards service tax payment for Internet Cafe service, Rs. 1,32,27,455 towards service tax payment for Online Information and Data base access/retrieval, Rs. 3,68,030 towards service tax payment for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y. The noticee, in their reply to the above SCN, reiterated their case and summed-up their case in the same manner as above. In reply to the SCN, the appellants also filed statements showing month-wise availment and utilization of input service/capital goods credit, as annexures to their replies. Thus, they endeavoured to show that they had not utilized any credit contrary to the provisions of rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After giving an opportunity of being heard, the Commissioner passed the impugned order demanding service tax of Rs. 7,55,53,408 from the appellants and dropped the rest of the demand raised in the SCNs. Interest on tax was also demanded. A penalty of Rs. 8 crores was also imposed. A break-up of the quantum of the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vis-a-vis the credit to the extent of 25 per cent of service tax on output services admissible under rule 6(3) in respect of common input services used in or in relation to the rendering of output services. The ld. counsel has filed a synopsis (written submissions) indicating the service tax credit taken by the appellants during the period April 2005 to September 2006 in relation to input services used in taxable services [sub-rule (2) of rule 6], input services specified under sub-rule (5) of rule 6, capital goods credit under sub-rule (4) of rule 6 and common input services under sub-rule (3) of rule 6. It is submitted by the ld. counsel that this information was placed before the Commissioner also, month-wise. A summary of this case of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....   Capital - Goods [6(4)] 3. Credit taken wider rule 6(5) 4. Common Input Services     1,98,27,370         2,74,82.407   4,04,88,752       8,77,98,529 5. International Payments [6(3)]   TOTAL 5,02,35,894 6,79,10,955 8,45,03,199 20,26,50,048 4. We have heard ld. JCDR also, who has seen the synopsis filed by the counsel and has fairly conceded that the matter requires to be remanded. 5. At this stage, Id. Counsel has also relied on the Board's Circular No.754/70/2003-CX., dated 9-10-2003 (F. No. 267/48/2003-CX) as also on case law mentioned below:- 1. CCE v. V.M. Salgaonkar & Bros. (P.) Ltd. [2008] 15 STT 76 (Mum.-CESTAT) 2....