2026 (4) TMI 371

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervice provider, operated as Multi System Operator (MSO) under the Digital Addressable System (DAS) in the Ratnagiri District, Maharashtra. The dispute pertains to the period 2014-15 to June, 2017. 3. It has come to the knowledge of the department that the appellant has not discharged the service tax liability for the period 2014-15 upto June, 2017 and after investigation, a Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 29.6.2020 was issued proposing recovery of service tax amounting to Rs.4,68,889/- on Cable Operators Service provided by them during the period from April, 2014 to June, 2017 under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest and penalty. The notice also proposed recovery of late fee for delayed filing of ST-3 ret....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....period has wrongly been invoked by the department. 7. Since limitation goes to the root of the matter, it is appropriate to decide this issue firstly. If the invocation of extended period is found to be unsustainable, the demand itself would fail, rendering going into the merits unnecessary. 8. As per department the fact about the non-payment or short payment of service tax was not ascertainable from the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant. So there is no dispute that the appellant had been filing ST-3 returns during the relevant time. 9. The show cause notice herein had been issued on 29.6.2020 for the period 2014-15 to June, 2017. But the period 2014-15 is even beyond the extended period, since the notice was issued after expiry ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not try to hide anything. The initial demand in the show-cause notice was Rs.4,68,889/-. The enhanced confirmation of Rs.6,62,827/- was based on the quantification of service tax liabilities produced by the appellant themselves during adjudication which has been recorded in paragraphs 12 & 12.1 of the Order-in-Original. There is no material on record evidencing any deliberate concealment of records. Admittedly the appellant was in possession of Cenvat credit invoices of Rs.8,04,872/- during the relevant period, which were produced before the adjudicating authority for verification, though not admissible being beyond the period of one year as prescribed under Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The availability of unutilised credit exceedin....