M/s Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate, Faridabad-I
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 86 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI
CESTAT CHANDIGARH – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. ST/61602/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO: 63482/2018
Service Tax
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Shri. S.K. Pahwa, Advocate- for the appellant
Shri. Vijay Gupta, AR. – for the respondent
ORDER
Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax along with interest is confirmed and the penalty is imposed under reverse charge mechanism by invoking extended period of limitation.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant availed certain serv
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he Act were imposed and amount already paid was appropriated. Against the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that in this case whatever service tax was paid by the appellant was entitled for cenvat credit to them, in that circumstances, no mala-fide can be attributable against the appellant. Hence, the extended period of limitation is not invokable, therefore, the demand pertains to the extended period of limitation are to be set aside and for the demands within the period of limitation, it is his submissions that as the appellant has paid service tax along with interest, therefore, in terms of Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994, no show cause notice was required to be issued to the ap
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ion is invokable or not?
(B) For the demand within limitation whether penalty under Section 77 & 78 can be imposed on the appellant or not?
(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the extended period of limitation is not invokable or not?
I find that in this case whatever amount of service tax is to be paid by the appellant under reverse charge mechanism, the appellant entitled to avail cenvat credit. In that circumstances, relying on the decision of this Larger Bench in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. reported in 2000 (119) ELT 718 (Tri. LB), I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable, therefore, the demand pertaining to the extended period of limitation is set aside. Consequently, no penalty is imposable.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =