TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... building or civil works to the appellant during the period from 2006-07 to 2011-12, after the detection of non-payment of service tax by the Department on 24.02.2012 he got registered with the service tax Department on 06.03.2012. 3. On scrutiny of the records of the appellant, it is alleged that the availment of CENVAT credit on the services provided by Shri. Nagaraj S. Patil, Toranagallu are ineligible and a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued. Adjudication authority as per the order dated 26.12.2013, confirmed the demand with interest and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before this Tribunal. Since the service provider Shri Nagaraj S. Patil, had approached Settlement Commission regarding the demand, this Tribunal as per the Final Order dated 18.03.2014 remanded the matter to Adjudication authority to proceed after Settlement Commission decides the issue and after the adjudication process in respect of the service provider is over. Thereafter Settlement Commission issued Order dated 13.02.2015 confirming the additional payment with interest, also imposed penalty and immunity from prosecution. Thereafter, Adjudication authority as per impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atil and in what way the facts have been suppressed by him, etc. It is further submitted that mere non-registration itself does not fall under the restrictions imposed under Rule 9(1)(bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The fact that Mr. Nagaraj S. Patil has paid the service tax along with interest itself clearly shows that he had no intention to evade service tax. Further there is no adjudication order passed against Mr. Nagaraj S. Patil, confirming the fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 or of the rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of service tax. Mere fact that the service provider has received a show cause notice and settled the issue before Settlement Commission itself will not prove the suppression of fact on the part of the service provider as contemplated under Rule 9(1)(bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is submitted that neither the show cause notice nor the Order passed by the Settlement Commission has brought on record any evidence to show that there was suppression, collusion or misstatement on the part of Mr. Nagaraj S. Patil, the service provider with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcluded under the definition of input service. Therefore, the above activity forms a part of the definition of input service, and Cenvat credit is rightly taken for the same. Learned Counsel also submits that the impugned order is issued without considering the directions issued by this Tribunal and for that reason also it is unsustainable. 8. As regards penalty, Learned Counsel submits that in order to impose penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there should be an intention to evade payment of duty, or there should be suppression or contravention of any of the provisions of the Excise Act. The department has always had knowledge of the activities undertaken by the Appellants. Further the Appellants had received the input services from Shri Nagaraj S. Patil, and he has issued Service Tax Invoices which contained all the details as required including payment of Service tax in the invoices on which Cenvat credit could be taken. Further the service provider had paid service tax on services provided to the appellants' factory and subsequently, paid interest for the delay in payment of service tax. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period 2006-07 to 2011-12, and proposing penalty under Rule 15(1) and 15(2) ibid read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. As regards the contention of the Appellant that the impugned order is issued without considering the finding of this Tribunal while remanding the issue, Learned AR submits that the outcome of the Order of the Settlement Commission has no bearing on the issue to be determined in the allegations in the show cause notice (SCN) No. 24/2013 Commr. (CEx.) dated 05.04.2013. The adjudication of the issue followed the Judicial discipline, consequent on the Order in this Tribunal, as per Final Order No. 20350/2014 dated 18.3.2014, which ordered to proceed to adjudicate the matter after Settlement Commission decides the issue and after the adjudication process in respect of the Service Provider is also over. 11. Learned AR further submits that in all the impugned supplementary invoices covering the period 2006-07 to 2011-12, the services as claimed by the appellants have been received prior to 01.04.2011. The service provider has taken registration on 06.03.2012 and prior to 06.03.2012, the service provider could not have made payment of tax to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eason of fraud or collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Finance Act or of the rules made thereunder with the intent to evade payment of service tax. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the payment was made only on the detection of the non-payment of service tax and the case laws relied by the appellant are not applicable in this case. As regards reliance of the appellant in the matter of Indian Oil Corp. (Supra) and Bosch Chassis System Ltd (Supra), in both the cases, Settlement Commission granted immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution under Central Excise Act, 1944. Further in the matter of Bharat Aluminum (Supra) we find that the appeal was allowed on the ground that extended period of limitation is not warranted to proceed against the appellant therein for the omission on the part of the service provider though he is imposed with penalty by Settlement Commission. However, in the instant case we find that as per the order of the Settlement Commission, partial immunity was extended by reducing the penalty to Rs. 9 lakhs. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the nonpayment of service tax is ....