TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se Notice also alleged short payment of Service Tax of Rs. 29,381/- + Rs. 93,731/- + Rs. 2928/-, totalling Rs. 1,26,040/- as revealed from a scrutiny of ST-3 Returns. Further, CENVAT Credit of Rs. 13,20,704/- was sought to be recovered where services were rendered to educational institutions (exempted service) and reversal of CENVAT Credit was not calculated as per Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR),2004 resulting in less reversal amount of ineligible service tax credit. 3. After due process, the Ld. Principal Commissioner vide the impugned Order in Original No. 03/ST/Commissioner/2024 dated 16.01.2024, out of the total demand of Rs. 6,79,14,092/- [Rs. 6,64,39,561/- +Rs. 1,26,040/- +Rs. 13,20,704/- + Rs. 20,387/- + Rs. 7,400/-], confirmed a demand of Rs. 21,43,026/- + Rs. 13,20,704/- totalling Rs.34,63,730/-, along with interest, and dropped the rest of the demand. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The Revenue has not filed any appeal against the dropped demand of over Rs.6.45 crores. 4. The Ld. Counsel, appearing for the appellant, contests the confirmed demand mainly on the ground that SCN has been issued under C No. III(03)57/SCN-Pat/SIS/Tec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... canvassed before the Adjudicating Authority. However, it has been submitted that the issue being that of question of law, the same can be raised even at the later appellate stage. For this, he relies on the judgment of Macnair Exports Pvt. Ltd. v CC [2002(142) E.L.T. 593 (Tri - Bang)] as upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in [2003 (152) E.L.T. A87(SC)]. 4.4. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is submitted by him that the entire demand was issued on the basis of B/S, P/L account and ST-3 Returns, which were always open to the department for any query/scrutiny and therefore, there has been no suppression in respect of the facts and figures based on which the SCN was issued. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. He submits that this observation is supported by the judgments passed in the cases of :- i. M/s. Munna Construction v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Jamshedpur [Final Order No. 77625 of 2024 dated 22.11.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 76359 of 2014 (CESTAT, Kolkata)] ii. M/s. Arya Logistics v Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Rajkot [Final Order No. 11700 of 2023 dated 17.08.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axes not levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded by reason of: (a) fraud: or (b) collusion: or (c) wilful mis-statement: or (d) suppression of facts: or (e) contravention of any of the provision of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 or the rules made there under with the intent to evade payment of duties or taxes 6. Trade, industry and field formations may be suitably informed. 7.1. A careful reading of the above Circulars would clarify that in the first Circular dated 10th March 2017, there is no whisper about suppression and non-suppression cases. A plain reading makes it clear that in both the cases, the pre-consultation procedure is mandated if the demanded amount is more than Rs.50 lakhs. 8. For the first time the Circular dated 11th November 2021, very specifically lists (a) to (e) cases, where such pre-consultation procedure need not be followed. The word 'reiterated' on its own cannot give any retrospective effect as has been canvassed by the Ld. Departmental Representative. Further, Paragraph 6 of the above Circular talks about the 'Trade and Industry an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 84 The contention of the learned A.S.G. that since the present case originated from the intelligence gathered from the DGGI such preconsulting is not required. The said contention runs contrary to the C/SCA/11308/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2022 recent clarification issued by the Board. For the very objection now being raised, a clarification was sought by the DGGI office from the Board as to whether the DGGI formations will fall under the exclusion category of the master circular dated 10th March 2017 read with the circular dated 19th November 2020. The Board vide the Circular No. F.No.116/13/2020-CX-3 Dated 11.11.2021 clarified that the exclusion from the pre-show cause notice consultation is case specific and not formation specific. Therefore, merely because in the present case, the case originated on account of investigation of the DGGI will not be a sufficient ground for not following the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Board which is binding on the department. Therefore, it was mandatory for the adjudicating authority in the present case to conduct the pre-show cause notice consultation and in absence of the same the present proceedings could be said to be bad in la....