TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-Original No.31/2012 dated 03.07.2012 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in providing Fund management service and is registered with a service tax Department. During the course of verification by internal audit, it was noticed that the appellant had received sponsorship services on which the appellant had not discharged the service tax liability and that the appellant had availed ineligible input services credit on coffee machine charge, club fees, employee insurance etc. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice No. 25/2011 dated 01.08.2011 invoking extended period of limitation, without indicating the period of demand, and proposing to demand Service tax on sponsorship services a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iver. It is submitted that the issue is no more res-integra. In this regard the appellant relies on the decisions in Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Vice Chairman Settlement Commissioner (2021) 10 TMI 233, The Vice Chairman Settlement Commissioner vs. Zyeta Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 4 TMI 774 and Shree Saibaba Chemicals Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service tax (2025) 28 Centax 158 (Tri.-Ahmd). As regards the Cenvat Credit taken the Ld. Counsel contended that the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2010) TIOL 745 has held that the services having nexus or integral connection with the activity of business of the appellant is eligible for credit and hence the Cenvat Credit taken is tenable. Rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences & Technology v CCE, 2021 (55) GSTL 26 (Tri-Del) and Aban offshore Ltd v. Commissioner of GST & CE, (2020) 9 TMI 937 in support of the appellant's contentions. 5. Mr. M Selvakumar, Ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the Respondent, reiterated the findings of the Appellate Authority in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the relevant material on record and the case laws submitted. 7. The issues that arise for determination are whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on sponsorship services in respect of which the service tax has already been discharged by the service provider and whether the cenvat credit availed on input services are tenable. 8. Adm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate Authority though finding force in their arguments that it would amount to double taxation if the appellant is asked to pay service tax in respect of the services on which the service tax has already been paid by the service provider, has nevertheless found the documents furnished insufficient to corelate the payment of service tax by the service provider towards the demand for the subject period. When we notice that the SCN issued itself, as contended by the appellant is sans any details of the demand of sponsorship service worked out, including the period of demand, when the appellant has been forthcoming enough to have readily discharged their service tax dues upon being pointed out before the issuance of SCN and has also having pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous High Courts and Tribunals, to take within its ambit all services used in relation to the business of the assessee. The allegation in the SCN is also bereft of an details as to how and why exactly the input services on which credit was taken were found to be ineligible. The reliance placed on the decision in CCE vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2010) TIOL 745, as well as for specific input services in the instant case, such as on the decisions in Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. Vs CST (2024) 16 Centax 160 (Tri.LB) for credit taken on employee insurance, Imagination Technologies India (P) Ltd. Vs CCE (2011) 23 STR 661 (Tri.-Mumbai) for credit taken on coffee machine, Aban offshore Ltd v. Commissioner of GST & CE, (2020) 9 TMI 937 for club f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact or contravention of any provision is not sufficient to attract the extended period of limitation. In the absence of any deliberate act on the part of the appellant with an intention to evade being established by the revenue, the essential precondition of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax is not satisfied. The decisions in, Uniworth Textiles v CCE, Raipur, 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC), CCE v Northern Operating Systems, 2022 (61) GSTL 129 (SC) and Lipi Boilers v The Commissioner of C.Ex, Aurangabad, 2025 INSC 1297 refer in this regard. We are therefore of the opinion, that Department ought not to have invoked the extended period of limitation. In these circumstances, for the aforesaid....