Seth Construction Versus CCGST, Mumbai (South)
Service Tax
2018 (8) TMI 1399 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 2-8-2018
Appeal No. ST/86616/2018 – A/87039/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Shri Mehul Jivani, C.A. for appellant
Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst, (AR) for respondent
ORDER
Per: S.K. Mohanty
Heard both sides.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of providing works contract service, defined as a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. During the dispute period, for providing such taxable service, the appellant had discharged the service tax liability in some cases and availed exemption under Notification 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
h the said adjudication order, Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 31.01.2018 in favour of Revenue. Vide the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the CENVAT Credit demand along with interest and appropriated the amount already reversed by the appellant towards such confirmed demand. The impugned order also imposed penalty on the appellant.
3. The short question involved in the appeal for consideration by the Tribunal is whether, upon reversal of CENVAT Credit on the exempted service along with interest, can the department proceed further for recovery of amount as contemplated under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and imposed penal
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
against the appellants. We find from the submissions of the Learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant that the appellant had already reversed the CENVAT credit and also paid interest on such reversal. Since on the date of passing of the impugned orders, there were no outstanding liability recoverable from the appellants, the demand of amount in terms of Rule 6(3) of the rules cannot be sustained. We find that this Tribunal in the case of Nagar Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Aurangabad [2018-TIOL-795-CESTAT-MUM], by placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [2015-TIOL-1550-CESTAT-MUM] has held
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =