TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., New Delhi. By this order, the Commissioner decided on the proposals made in the show cause notice dated 10.03.2016 whereby service tax amounting to Rs. 14,44,33,211/- was proposed to be recovered along with interest and penalties were proposed to be imposed. Of this proposed demand, the Commissioner dropped a demand of Rs. 2,81,35,079/- for the period July, 2010 to September, 2013 regarding non-reversal of CENVAT credit in terms of rule 6(3) of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 [CCR]. Revenue is in appeal against this dropping of demand. 2. The Commissioner confirmed demand of Rs. 11,62,98,132/- on five other grounds and appropriated an amount of Rs. 5,25,39,217/- paid by the assessee prior to issue of show cause notice. The assessee's appeal is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d confirmed (in Rs. ) Demand Proposed (in Rs.) Penalty confirmed 1. Short payment of service tax due to wrong exchange rate April 2012 to September 2014 2,25,80,613/- 2,25,80,613+ 89,01,772 (interest) 2,25,80,613 (confirmed and appropriated) - 1,12,90,307 2. Service Tax payable reflected in ST-3 returns, but not paid 2012-13 to 2013-14 6,37,58,915/- - 6,37,58,915 3,18,79,458 3 Short payment of service tax due to incorrect rate of tax July 2012 to September 2012 30,03,278 20,83,083+ 10,85,486(interest) 9,20,195 + 8,29,310(interest) 20,83,083 (confirmed and appropriated) +9,20,195 - 15,01,639 4 Non-reversal of Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules July 2012 to Septemb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of such service tax, and inform the [Central Excise Officer] of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the amount so paid : Provided that the Central Excise Officer may determine the amount of short-payment of service tax or erroneously refunded service tax, if any, which in his opinion has not been 18 paid by such person and, then, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to recover such amount in the manner specified in this section, and the period of "thirty months" referred to in sub- section (1) shall be counted from the date of receipt of such information of payment. Explanation.1- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e material facts based upon which the SCN was issued were apparently not disclosed by the noticee for the ST-3 returns; (b) The department came to know about the rendering of services with payment of service tax only during the scrutiny of statutory returns; (c) The onus is on the assessee to confirm to higher standard of disclosure in the statutory returns; (d) The assessee failed to file proper and complete ST-3 returns and suppressed the material facts; (e) Paying service tax is civil obligation and, therefore, the intent to evade payment of tax and cannot be established by looking into the minds of the taxpayers but has to establish through evaluation of its behavior; (f) There is a greater responsibility of the taxpayer opera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sess tax and file returns as required. It is the job of the officer to scrutinize them to ensure that the service tax has been correctly assessed and paid. It also needs to be pointed out that since the returns are filed online, it is not possible for the assessee to provide any details other than what is required in the ST-3 returns. The central excise officer may seek any details, which he feel necessary to scrutinize them. The appellant cannot be faulted for not providing any information which it was not required to provide in the ST-3 returns. 11. The central excise officer is given sufficient time to scrutinize the returns and issue a demand under section 73 within the normal period of limitation. If he fails to do so, and if som....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of penalty under section 78 on the assessee also needs to be set aside. 15. The appeal of the Revenue is regarding dropping of demand of Rs. 2,18,35,039/-for the period 2012-13 and 2013-14 under rule 6(3) of CCR. The Commissioner, after perusing the details submitted by the assesse, the certificate from the chartered accountant and the ST-3 returns, accepted the asseesse's contention that the appellant had wrongly shown some amounts as net amounts instead of gross amount in the ST-3 returns. After taking them into consideration, the Commissioner found that the reversal of CENVAT credit was correct and proper and, therefore, dropped the demand. The grounds on which the Revenue filed this appeal are as follows: (i) The Commissioner dropp....