TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking the extended period of limitation. The Ld. Commissioner has also confirmed the demand of interest under Section 75 of the Act and also imposed penalty under Section 76, 77 and equal penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in providing the service under the category of "Construction of Complex" falling under Clause (zzzh) of Sub Section (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 An Audit of the appellant was conducted by Internal Audit (HQ), during the course of which, the Audit team observed that the appellant had paid Service Tax after availing abatement @67% from the gross amount charged by them in terms of Not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turns regularly from the very beginning in which the fact of availment of cenvat credit as well as simultaneously availment of benefit of abatement had been reflected, therefore, there is no malafide or wilful mis-statement on their part. They had explained that the error had occurred due to the fact that newly appointed staff was not aware of the requirements of law. 2.4 After following due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the entire demand by invoking the extended period of limitation alongwith interest and penalties. 2.5 Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on records. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies 2016(43) STR 354 (Raj) 4.2 He further submits that the amount even higher than that of credit availed stands reversed and the reversal of the entire amount alongwith interest has the effect as if no credit has been claimed, therefore, no demand merits on the assessee. 4.3 He further submits that there was no malafide intention in availing credit as the appellant had been regularly filing statutory returns showing availment of Cenvat Credit alongwith availment of abatement and the entire facts were in the knowledge of the department and therefore, the allegation of suppression of facts are without any basis. 4.4 Ld. Counsel also submits that the imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 77 cannot be imposed in view of the decision o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in Para 5 as under:- "5. As regards the eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. after reversal of the Cenvat credit taken on input services along with interest, it needs to be appreciated that in the Notification No. 15/2004-S.T. there was no bar against taking Cenvat credit of input services. When the said notification was superseded by Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. an additional condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit on input services was also introduced. It is thus possible that initially this may have escaped the attention of the appellant. No prudent person would take the risk of being saddled with a demand of almost Rs. 14 crores merely for input service credit of just above Rs. 32 lakhs. As regards the pos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence has no direct applicability to the issue at hand. The CESTAT judgment in the case of Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers (supra) cited by ld. Departmental Representative was in relation to Service Tax liability of main contractor vis-a-vis sub-contractor and hence is not germane to the issue at hand. As regards the other judgment Dilip Chhabria Designs [2015-TIOL-851-HC-Mum-CX = 2015 (323) E.L.T. 565 (Bom.)], cited by Revenue to distinguish the judgment in the case of Hello Minerals (supra), we find that the facts in that case were very different inasmuch as in that case the assessee did not reverse the credit at the time of removal of goods or after removal. W....