TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amely "Maintenance Or Repair services', 'Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services' 'Works Contract Services and for paying service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services under Reverse Charge Mechanism under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.2 During the course of audit of their records for the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 (up to June, 17), certain discrepancies detailed below were noticed: • they had taken CENVAT credit of Rs, 2,55,917/- on the strength of bills/Invoices covering goods viz. Panel enclosures, Volt foot motor, Motor which were supplied by them as traded goods to their clients along with their own manufactured goods. On being pointed out the appellant paid an amount of Rs.2,55,917/- through GSTR-3B for the month of March 2019. • they had filed ER-3 for the quarter ending March, 2015 delayed by 1 day, December, 201,5 delayed by 4 days and June, 2017 delayed by 40 days. Thus, in terms of the provisions of Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the party was required to pay late fee @Rs. 100/- per day i.e. Rs,4,500/- but they had not paid the same. Hence, late fee of Rs. 4500/- is liable to be recovered fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount of Rs, 2,55,917/-through GSTR-3B3 for the month at March, 2019, as to why the same should not be appropriated against the said demand II. Interest on the above demand at the appropriate rate should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 11 AA the Central Excise Act, 1944. III. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read-with Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. N IV. Service Tax amounting to Rs. 2,39,417/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seventeen only), should not be demanded and recovered from them under the provisions of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. As the party has already paid an amount f Rs.2,39,417/ through GSTR-3B for the month of March 2019, as to why the same should not be appropriated against the said demand V. Interest at the appropriate rate on the above demand at (IV) should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994: VI. Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. VII. Late fee of Rs,4500/- should not be demanded and recover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ENVAT Credit and also the short payment of service tax at the time of audit, on being pointed out deposited the same even before the issuance of show cause notice. • However the proceedings have been initiated against them and the demand have been confirmed and the amounts so deposited appropriated against the demand of irregularly availed CENVAT Credit and Service Tax short paid. Penalties have been imposed on them equivalent to the amount of irregularly availed CENVAT Credit and short paid. • They have paid the interest also however no cognizance has been taken of the interest paid. She will provide the details of payment of interest within 10 days. • As they have already deposited the duty along with interest before the issuance of show cause notice penalties imposed upon them cannot be justified. 3.3 Authorized representative reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. "7. With regard to denial of credit and confirmation of demand of Rs 2,55,917/-, contention of the appellant is that the credit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been able to controvert the allegations on the basis of which such demand was confirmed. Therefore, hold that confirmation of demand of Rs. 1,08,038/- impugned order is legal and proper 12. The appellant has contended that extended period is not invokable as there was no suppression on their part in the present case and for the same reason penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not imposable. On the contrary I find that the appellant did not disclose the facts of availing inadmissible credit and non-payment of Service Tax came to the notice of the department only when Audit was conducted. Merely because the transactions were reflected in the books of account, cannot be a reason for non-invocation of extended period. Fact is that the said books were produced only before Audit and not voluntarily to the department earlier. That Section 11A and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 73 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 specifically recognize such cases as suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty/tax when they provide lesser penalty in such cases. As such I hold that invocation of extended period for confirming demand and impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11-AA. (2) The person who has paid the duty under clause (b) of sub-section (1), shall inform the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of the duty so paid or any penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. (3) Where the Central Excise Officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under clause (b) of sub-section (1) falls short of the amount actually payable, then, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable in the manner specified under that sub-section and the period of 1 [two years] shall be computed from the date of receipt of information under sub-section (2). Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 (3) Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, the person chargeable with the service tax, or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, may pay the amount of such service tax, chargeable....