TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the Income Tax Department, it was observed that during the Financial Year 2016-17, there was a difference in the gross value shown in the Income Tax Return as compared to the Service Tax Return. The sale of services in the ITR was Rs.1,65,71,239/- whereas the total value as per Form 26AS statement was Rs.1,89,99,741/- and the gross value shown in the Service Tax Return was Rs.30,96,600/-. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 08.10.2021 was issued demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs.23,85,471/- alongwith applicable interest and to impose penalty under various sections. The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-In-Original dated 19.05.2023 passed the following order:- ORDER (i) I confirm the demand of Service Tax amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees Ten Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Three only) 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Department filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the CENVAT Credit of Rs.3,73,932/- has been availed/utilized in contravention of the provisions of Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Department and passed the following order:- ORDER i) Wrongly allowed/set off of demand of Service Tax to the tune of Rs.3,73,932/- is set aside and is ordered to be recovered from the respondent under Section 3(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. ⅱ) I order for recovery of interest on R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1902/2021 dated 13.10.2021, allowed adjustment of CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,73,933/- against total demand of Rs. 16,63,911/-. Thus, net service tax demand of Rs.12,89,978/-, after paying Rs. 3,73,933/- from CENVAT credit account, was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide OIO dated 19.05.2023. The Appellant had already deposited service tax of Rs. 12,89,978/- vide challan No. 230554731 dated 04.05.2023 (date of payment 08.05.2023 on AIO). Interest of Rs. 13,23,730/-alongwith penalty of Rs.3,25,495/-, total Rs. 16,49,225/- was also deposited on 27.06.2023 to conclude the proceedings. 6. The learned Advocate further submitted that the Original Order dated 19.05.2023 was reviewed/examined by the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Noida under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for allowing CENVAT credit under third proviso to Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 limiting the period for availment of CENVAT credit to one year of the date of issue of CENVAT document as prescribed under Rule 9, ibid, may not be applicable in case the taxable value of services and the tax payable thereon are re-assessed for the tax period 2016-17. The benefit of substantial benefit of CENVAT credit may not be disallowed to the Appellant for the tax period for which the demand has been made on account of re-assessment of the taxable value of services and the tax payable. 10. On limitation, the learned Advocate submits that that the SCN has been issued on 08.10.2021 for demand of service tax for the year 2016-17 invoking extended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the proceedings. Accordingly, the denial of CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.3,73,933/- is not justified and is accordingly, set aside. 15. Regarding invocation of extended period of limitation, I find that CBIC in its Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017 with regard to issue of SCN invoking extended period of limitation for demand of duty/tax by reason of wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, etc. has issued following guidelines to be strictly followed by the field formations citing Supreme Court decision in case of M/s Cosmic Dye chemical Vs Collector of Cen. Excise, Bombay [1995 (75) E.L.Τ. 721 (S.C.) in respect of Central Excise provisions which are equally applicable to Service tax matters as under: "3.1 L....