TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue : Shri M. Selvakumar, Authorized Representative ORDER PER: SHRI P. DINESHA : These Appeals arise out of the common impugned Order-in-Original Nos.001 to 010/2017 (R) dated 22.12.2017 passed by Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai. Entertaining a doubt that there was short payment of service tax, non-payment of service tax, short reversal of cenvat credit etc. for various periods, the Revenue issued various Show Cause Notices, which came to be adjudicated by the common impugned order, however since Appeals against each demand were filed separately, most of the Appeals have been disposed of as settled under SVLDRS, leaving only these Appeals. Relevant SCNs and the issue involved in each of these Appeals as tabulated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules. 4,30,816 Short payment of ST due to non- inclusion of TDS on the import of service 8,37,51,476 Short reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A) 21,38,733 Wrong availment of CENVAT credit on handling service used exclusively in the exempted service 9,09,14,970 TOTAL 3. SCN No.455/ 2011 dated 13.10.2011 2010-11 16,13,85,905 Short reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6 (3A) Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 73 (1) of Finance Act, 1994 Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules Rule 15 (1) of CENVAT Credit Rules. 2. Hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustify invoking the extended period. 5. The next issue is regarding alleged short-payment of service tax on turnover commission, it was submitted in this regard that the turnover commission is what was actually received from R.B.I for doing Government business as an agent of R.B.I; the same is shared between multiple banks wherever many banks are involved. It was submitted that Notification No.22/2006-ST dated 31.03.2006 issued by R.B.I itself specifically exempts such service from service tax liability since exemption available to Principal i.e. R.B.I is available to its agent. Ld. Advocate would also rely upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CST Bangalore Vs Canara Bank [2023 (5) TMI 137 (SC) = 2023 (71) G.S.T.L 225 (SC)].....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the Revenue has not disputed the eligibility of the Appellant-Bank to avail credit on the Telecommunication service invoice, the invoice would be first settled fully including the service tax by the Appellant on which Input Tax Credit was sought to be availed. BSNL having later on refunded a partial amount, it was thus held by the Revenue that the cenvat credit was required to be proportionately reversed. Our attention was drawn in this regard to the CBEC Circular No.122/03/2010-ST dated 30.04.2010. 9. Insofar as the Department Appeals are concerned, wherein the Department has questioned the non-reversal of cenvat credit under Rule 6 (3A) by treating interest income as exempt, it was submitted that interest was partially exempt by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d everything in its books in strict conformity with the guidelines / circulars issued by R.B.I. Perhaps some of the issues also involve interpretation and hence, there cannot be any scope to allege suppression of facts with an intent to evade tax and hence, invocation of extended period of limitation cannot stand. In this regard, we find that the reliance placed by the Appellant-Bank on the following decisions support their case :- (i) Chamundi Die Cast (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Bangalore [2007 (215) ELT 169 (SC)] (ii) Cosmic Dye Chemical Vs CCE [1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC)] (iii) CCE Vs Vineet Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2002 (144) ELT A292 (SC)] Further, it is not also the case of the Revenue that there was deliberate ....