2026 (7) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Representative ORDER P.V. SUBBA RAO: M/s G.S. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. [Assessee] filed Service Tax Appeal No. 55224 of 2023 to assail the order-in-original No. 43/Commr/Delhi East/AP/2021 dated 26.11.2021 [impugned order] passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, GST, Delhi East, New Delhi. Shri Harvinder Singh Sikka, the Director of the assessee filed Service Tax Appeal No. 52183 of 2022 to assail the same impugned order. Shri Gurinder Singh Sikkia, Director also filed Service Tax Appeal No. 52182 of 2022 to assail the same impugned order. 2. We have heard Shri Siddarth Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Rajeev Kapoor, learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. The appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts were prepared as per accounting standard AS-7 and ST-3 returns were prepared and filed as per the point of taxation rules. Therefore, there was a difference between the two sets of figures. 7. As far as the Cenvat credit is concerned, the allegation in the impugned order is that the appellant had wrongly availed Cenvat credit wrongly while availing the benefit of Notification No. 26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. According to the learned counsel, this allegation was wrong and the appellant had only availed Cenvat credit on the inputs on which no exemption was taken under the Notification. Further, he also submitted that the Notification No. 26/2012-ST only barred availment of Cenvat credit on the inputs and not on input services. Therefore....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....repared as per accounting standard AS-7. The ST-3 returns were filed as per the point of taxation rules as the assessee was required to file. The assessee had also made this submission before the Commissioner but the Commissioner did not agree with this contention for the reason that the assessee had not submitted any evidence for receipt of advances, payment of service tax thereon and adjustment of advance amounts against the agreed amount and payment of service tax on the balance amount. For this reason, the Commissioner did not accept the contention of the assessee. The Commissioner does not dispute that ST-3 returns have to be filed as per the point of taxation rules and the balance sheet could have been prepared following the different....