TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C. Vijay Sekhar Reddy against imposition of personal penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. Appeal No. ST/30371/2017 has been filed by the Revenue against dropping of alleged demand of Rs.9,68,42,681/-, which was alleged in the SCN as short payment of tax under the head Cargo Handling service and Mining service for the period 10.04.2008 to 11.08.2010. 4. The brief facts are that the appellant is registered with the service tax department for various services, inter alia, 'Mining of mineral, oil or gas service', 'Goods Transport Agency service' (GTA), 'Supply of Tangible Goods service' (SOTG), etc. The appellant maintains regular books of accounts in the ordinary course of business and regularly files ST3 Returns. 5. Pusuant to audit for the period 2009-10 till 2011-12, it appeared to Revenue that appellant has not paid service tax correctly. Accordingly, earlier SCN dt.08.10.2014 was issued invoking extended period of limitation, demanding service tax under various heads for the period April 2009 to March 2011. 6. Thereafter, present SCN dt.30.12.2014 was issued (within 3 months), inter alia, alleging that under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), an amnestry scheme not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.28,55,26,115/-, the appellant had claimed that they have already paid Rs.5,26,93,750/- (by Cenvat credit) and Rs.3,34,53,685/- (by challan) and thus, made declaration for the balance unpaid tax. As appellant failed to deposit at least 50% of the tax dues on or before 31.12.2013, as such they have rendered themselves uneligible for availing the benefit of the scheme, as per the provisions of Sec 108 of the Finance Act 2013. 11. Further, it appeared that in respect of the declared tax dues, for recovery, recovery proceedings were inititated under Sec 87 of the Finance Act 1994 (special mode of recovery). Such recovery proceedings were unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and subsequently, their SLP was also dismissed at the admission stage. Simultaneously, Revenue also proceeded to issue SCN under Sec 111 of the Finance Act 2013, which provides - Where the Commissioner of Central Excise has reasons to believe that the declaration made by a declarant under this scheme was 'substantially false', he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, serve notice on the declarant to show cause why he should not pay the tax dues not paid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e balance tax dues and accordingly, they were issued discharge certificate of full and final settlement in Form SVLDRS-4 dt.30.06.2020. 14. Thus, the tax dues of Rs.6,11,70,185/- raised in the impugned order for amount payable under VCES under Sec 110 read with Sec 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 stands fully and finally settled under the SVLDR Scheme, 2019. 15. The Revenue is in appeal against dropping of demand of Rs.9,68,42,681/- alleged as service tax short paid under 'cargo handling service' and 'mining service'. 16. Learned Commissioner in the impugned order has noticed that appellant has been providing service to Nidhi Mining Pvt Ltd for waste handling - transportation activity and no service tax was charged or paid, claiming exemption under GTA service, that each consignment/trip is valued less than Rs.750/-. Whereas, service tax was charged under Invoice No.2 dt.31.02.2010 raised on Vaishnavi Minerals for similar activity. It was further alleged that though the appellant has classified the activity under GTA service, but it appeared to Revenue that transporation charges including handling of waste overburden or the excavation of ore/mineral in the mine is classifiable unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt for the period June 2005 to September 2009 were audited by internal audit team and for the period 2009-10 to 2011-12, by AG audit party. All the relevant records were submitted by the appellant for audit. Thus, the Revenue was fully aware of the affairs of the appellant and earlier SCNs dt.20.10.2010 & 08.10.2014 had been issued covering the period 2004- 05 to 2009-10 & 2009-10 to 2011-12 respectively. In the SCN dt.08.10.2014, service tax has been demanded under the head 'mining service', 'management consultancy service', 'GTA service', 'site formation and clearance service' with proposal to disallow irregular availment of Cenvat credit, etc. These two SCNs issued earlier are testimony that the notices emanated out of the aforementioned audits. Thus, invokation of extended period of limitation for the present SCN dt.30.12.2014 is not sustainable. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, the demand of Rs.9,68,42,681/- was held to be already covered by the earlier SCN dt.08.10.2014 and hence, the same was dropped, following the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs CCE, AP [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)]. 19. Assailing the dropping of demand, learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08, learned Commissioner recorded finding that services are rendered at SEZ project at Dahej and hence, exempted from service tax vide Notification No. 09/2009-ST. This finding is challenged on the ground that exemption contained in the said notification is subject to various conditions specified therein. Learned Commissioner has not examined the said aspect/conditions. 21. Opposing the Revenue appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant states that the learned Commissioner has recorded categorical findings of facts including repetition of demand with respect to the period covered by the earlier SCN. Learned Commissioner has also recorded the finding based on the records that Revenue was in the full knowledge of the affairs of the appellant due to various audit inspections from time to time, filing of returns by the appellant and maintenance of proper records, which were subjected to audit by Revenue regularly. Thus, the learned Commissioner has rightly dropped the demand on the ground of duplication and limitation. Learned Commissioner also rightly held that extended period of limitation is not available to Revenue for the present SCN dt.30.12.2014. It is further urged that as the ....