TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Learned Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal), in Service Tax Appeal No. 76415 of 2014 dated 27.09.2024. 2. The assessee filed the said appeal before the learned Tribunal challenging the order in original dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Service Tax Commissionerate, Kolkata. By the said order the demand of service tax made in the show cause notice was confirmed in exercise of the power under Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended), the demand of cenvat credit under Proviso to Section 73 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was confirmed and interest was directed to be paid and penalty was also imposed. Before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts powers under Section 72A of the Finance Act 1994 has directed Special Audit by a reputed Auditor (in terms of paragraph 3.5.3.1 of Adjudication Order) and the said Special Audit Report forms part of the evidence of the case before the Adjudicating Authority and that the Adjudicating authority in consideration of the Audit report and the materials submitted by the Respondent had recalculated the liability of Service Tax due from the respondent from the total demand of Rs. 21,26,04,779/- as raised in the show cause notice arising on the ground of the difference of taxable value between Trial Balance and ST-3 Return demand to Rs. 3,53,30,714/- and as such the order of the Learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in law? (iii) Whether the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3 returns of the Appellant. July 2011 to March 2012 18,95,028 4. Alleged short-payment of tax based on an improper comparison of select GL Codes appearing in the Trial Balance of the Appellant vis-à-vis the income reflected in the ST 3 returns for the relevant period. October 2007 to March 2012 3,53,30,714 6. We have elaborately heard learned Advocates for both the parties and carefully perused the materials placed on record and the reasons assigned by the adjudicating authority and that of the learned Tribunal. 7. The finding rendered by the learned Tribunal on issue no.3 (as mentioned above) is contained in paragraph 16 of the impugned order. 8. On going through the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, we find t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oint a special auditor, the adjudicating authority was required to examine the special audit report and in case he disagrees with the findings recorded by the special auditor, the adjudicating authority is required to record reasons by clearly setting out the factual position. As pointed out by the learned Tribunal, this aspect has not been complied with and there is no reasoning by the adjudicating authority upon receipt of the special audit report. Therefore, we are of the view, that the learned Tribunal was justified in observing that the adjudicating authority has not given any finding to the contrary of the reconciliation report submitted by the assessee which was taken note of during the special audit. Apart from that, we find the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of material facts in the statutory returns filed by the assessee with an intent to evade payment of tax. The adjudication authority in paragraph 4.0 deals with this issue. On perusal of the said paragraph, it is seen that the adjudicating authority has virtually extracted the statutory provision which sets out the circumstances under which the extended period of limitation could be invoked. However, merely by extracting the statutory provision would not suffice as the assessing officer has to indicate as to how the assessee resorted to willful mis-statement and suppression of material facts in their statutory returns with an intent to evade payment of tax. 13. This being conspicuously absent, the question of invoking the extended peri....