TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brief are that the Appellant M/s Panchatatva Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. is registered with the Service Tax Department. On the basis of third party information received from the Income Tax Department for the Financial Year 2014-15, a Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 30.12.2020 was issued. It is mentioned in the SCN that the ST-3 Returns filed by the Appellant were verified from the GST portal. The Service Tax payment and the value of service are as per the data provided by the CBDT. It is the case of the Department that the exact nature/classification of the services provided by the party were not known. Hence benefit of abatement/exemption cannot be extended. 3. The SCN proceeded on following figures: - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....housand Four Hundred Thirteen Only) upon the party under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, as discussed above for suppression of facts and contravention of the provisions of the Finance Act (ibid) and rules made there under. The amount of penalty of Rs.62,413/-, deposited by the party, vide CIN: 20240201144132874848 dated 01.02.2024, is hereby appropriated. (iv) I refrain from imposing penalty under Section 77 (1) (c) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the Central GST Act, 2017 as discussed above." 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, Revenue filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority on the following grounds:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue. Hence, the present appeal filed by the Assessee-Appellant before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the services were provide by registered subcontractor and duly received by the Appellant, and the veracity of the invoices is not in dispute. 8. He further submitted that the fundamental conditions for availing the CENVAT credit under the scheme are specified and credit cannot be denied merely because the same was not availed within one year. Further, the learned Advocate vehemently argued that the First Appellate Authority was not justified in denying the credit merely because the Appellant did not show any output service value in its ST-3 Returns, whereas, it is well settled t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve considered that their tax liability have been fulfilled by their supplier M/s Aakriti Buildtech, whereas as per the Service Tax law, it is clear that the Service Tax has to be borne by the Respondent itself. 14. I find that the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Courts have been consistently holding that substantial eligibility to CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on the basis of mere procedural lapse/violation. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Appellant have availed the services and paid the Service Tax on the same and are in possession of the documents indicating such availment. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the credit cannot be denied merely because it has been utilized late. 15. it is also ....