TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts in brief relevant for the present adjudication are as follows: 1.1 The appellant is engaged in providing "Site Formation and Clearance, Excavation, Earth Moving and Demolition Services". The appellant had availed Cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (hereinafter referred as CCR, 2004). During the audit of the appellants, following discrepancies were noticed by the department: (i) Non-payment of service tax on the value of material supplied free of cost by the service recipient. (ii) Excess availment of Cenvat Credit due to the difference in the closing balance of credit for September 2009 and opening balance of credit for October 2009 in the ST-3 returns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant and after examining all the invoices submitted by the appellant relating to disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.30,05,484/-. Pursuant to those remand directions that the impugned Order No. 07/2022-23 dated 16.11.2023 has been passed disallowing the Cenvat credit of Rs.30,05,484/- alleging it to be the excess availment of Cenvat credit. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. Mehak Mehra, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rohit Issar, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has mentioned that the impugned order has been passed without complying with the remand direction of the Tribunal and in fact has travelled beyon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) India Glycols Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Dehradun, Final Order No. 58073/2024 dated 20.08.2024. 3.2 It is further submitted that the appellant has duly disclosed all the details in its ST-3 returns. It was the responsibility of the departmental officers to verify the veracity of the details therein that too within the normal period of limitation. Due to the failure on part of the department, extended period should not have been invoked. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (i) National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jaipur, Excise Appeal No. 55585 of 2023-SM dated 20.12.2024. (ii) Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of reply to the audit memo dated 13.09.2023 and even in the reply dated 13.09.2023, the appellant had pleaded the inadvertent error while recording the correct figures of Cenvat credit availed and utilized during the period from April 2009 to September 2009 in the ST-3 returns due to which the closing balance of credit for the month of September 2009 stood at Rs.64,97,643/- whereas the opening balance of credit for October 2009 was correctly recorded as Rs.95,03,124/-. It is the amount which is also appearing in the Cenvat credit register. 5.2 All 16 invoices for the said period were duly been provided by the appellant to the adjudicating authorities. At the first round of litigation all the invoices were not considered which is why th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,92,297 64,85,056 [Sum of figures appearing Column 7a from Entries 39 to 44 relating to invoices enclosed at pg. no. 382-392 of appeal paperbook] - 1,86,77,353 July 2009 1,86,77,353 24,72,000 [Sum of figures appearing Column 7a from Entries 45 to 46 relating to invoices enclosed at pg. no. 393-396 of appeal paperbook] - 2,11,49,535 August 2009 2,11,49,353 9,92,920 [Sum of figures appearing Column 7a from Entry 47 relating to invoices enclosed at pg. no. 397 of appeal paperbook] - 2,21,42,273 September 2009 2,21,42,27 3 22,74,240 [Sum of figures appearing Column 7a from Entries 48 and 49 relating to invoices enclosed at pg. no. 398-401 of appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Delhi Duty Free Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 5.5 Now coming to the issue of invokability of extended period of limitation. It is observed that there is no iota of evidence produced by the department about any positive act of alleged suppression or mis-declaration of fact on part of the appellant. The show cause notice was issued based on appellant's own records. There is no evidence that the pleaded inadvertent error had any mala fide intent. It is accordingly held that the extended period has wrongly been invoked. Penalty is also has wrongly been imposed. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are referred. I draw my support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C....