TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was noticed that the appellant has incurred security and legal expenses for workshop / unit and availed Cenvat Credit of the service tax paid on such expenses. It was further noticed that the appellant are providing taxable services as well as carrying out trading activities (sale of its spare parts, lubricants, vehicles etc.) from the workshop. It appeared that the security and legal services availed by the appellant are common input services for providing taxable services as well as trading activities and they had not maintained separate records for the receipt, consumption etc. of the common input services received by them. The department was of the view that the appellant was liable for reversal of proportionate Cenvat Credit in terms of Rules 6 (3D) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. As per Rule 2 (e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, exempted services includes service on which no service tax is leviable under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. Trading of goods is one of the services listed in the Negative List of Services as per Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, since trading activity is specifically included in the exempted services, the department was of the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of either following the either of the said Rules and have not reversed any Cenvat Credit availed in respect of common input services. He rejected the contention of the appellant that the security service, which according to the department was used for both taxable and exempted services, was used exclusively for taxable services. The learned Commissioner also observed that there is nothing on records to indicate that the trading of goods carried on by the appellant is from a distinctly separate premises from that of the workshop from where taxable services are being providing by them. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted that the security services is being used only for provision of taxable services from the workshop. Therefore, the appellant are not eligible to avail Cenvat Credit in respect of the input service used in exempted service i.e. trading of goods. Consequently, they are liable to reverse the proportionate credit in terms of Rule 6 (3) / (3A) of CCR, 2004. 1.6 The learned Commissioner also observed that the provision of CCR, 2004 do not leave any room for doubt regarding the inadmissibility of Cenvat Credit in respect of the exempted services.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In this connection, the learned Counsel for the appellant cited M/s. Arhann Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. Superintendent Central Tax in which Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN No. on proceedings under the GST Act came to be considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyel vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2022 (8) TMI 216 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing the provisions of the Act and the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, has held that an order which does not contain DIN No. would be non-est and invalid. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, non-mentioning of DIN No. in the Show Cause Notice, which was uploaded in the portal shall have the effect that notice is invalid and is liable to be set aside. 2.2 The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the extended period of limitation has been wrongly invoked by the Revenue under proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. In Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 the following provision has been made, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disputed service income' has been duly and fully reflected in the appellant's books of account and that there has been no intention whatsoever on the part of the appellant to hide the said 'disputed taxable service value' from the knowledge of the department. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.4 The learned Counsel for the appellant also cited M/s. Gennon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd vs. Commissioner (Adjudication) of Service Tax, New Delhi reported in 2020 (12) TMI 1096 CESTAT New Delhi in which it has been held by the Tribunal that when the appellant has been regularly filing the returns, the department cannot take a stand that it is only during the audit that it could examine the factual position. Thus, it cannot be urged by the department that if the officers of the audit team had not conducted the audit, non-payment of service tax would not have been unearthed. It, therefore follows that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked. The extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts of the present case ....