TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apter Heading 84818030 and 84819090. During the audit of accounts of the appellant by CERA for the period 2008-2011 and other connected records relating to input service tax credit received for the year 2009-2010 issued by the Corporate Office at Chennai which is having ISD certificate revealed that the input services to Unit II was taken as credit by the appellant (Unit I). On perusal of the documents and the details of Head Office Service Tax distributed to utilization account through ISD for the month December 2009 was Rs.30,07,771/-. The appellant vide their letter dated 26.02.2013 also confirmed that service of fabrication of steel structure was done only at their Unit-II. As per Rule 4 (2) of Service Tax Rules, 1944, the Input Service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period of limitation since the law does not provide for any implied or hidden aspects or on assumptions or presumptions; any action proposed to be taken should be specific based on the action or inaction on the part of the assessee. Hence, the manner of availing credit may invite actions which ultimately result in recovery of the same, but however, the same could only be done in the manner known or prescribed under law. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs CCE Pune - 2007 (211 ELT 513 (SC) has clearly held that the extended period of limitation entails both civil and criminal consequences and therefore must be specifically stated in the SCN. 5. Facts borne on record also reveal that there was an Audit [C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stances, the extended period is not invocable as there is no allegation against the appellant of suppression of facts or willful misstatement." In any case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant was not eligible to avail the credit in question, nor is there any allegation that the other units were not entitled for the credit. The only allegation in the show cause notice is that the appellant should have distributed the credit to other units for their utilisation, which means that the eligibility of credit by the other unit stood admitted by the Revenue. 6. Further, it is the case of the appellant that the address of unit-2 was wrongly mentioned which was due to a clerical error, which fact was brought to the notice of the O....