SH Rao Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur \u2013 GST
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 976 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 6-11-2018
Appeal No. ST\/30844\/2018 – A\/31466\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical)
\nShri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.
\nShri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: P. Venkata Subba Rao
\nThis appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. GUNEXCUS- 000-APP-006-18-19, dated 13.04.2018.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. The appellant herein was providing digitization of records and database services and was liable to pay service tax and he was also availing the facility of CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of audit, it was found by the department that the assessee has taken irregular CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs. 42,750\/- on some services he has also availed an excess amount of Rs. 4,452\/- as credit<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n nal of the lower authority. Hence this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d and they had not maintained any credit balance equivalent to the irregular credit taken during the period in dispute. In fact, the assessee had shown zero closing balance of service tax in their ST-3 returns. He, therefore, submits that the appellant was liable to pay interest as they had wrongly utilized the CENVAT credit. He further argues that in so far as these two amounts were concerned, the appellant had taken CENVAT credit in violation of the rules and had evaded payment of duty to the extent. Therefore they are fully liable for penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, he concedes that the appellant was covered by the proviso to Section 78 is applicable during the relevant period inasmuch as the irregular availment of CENVAT credit by the appellant and consequent evasion of payment of service tax was noticed by an audit of the books of accounts maintained by the appellants themselves. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SH Rao Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur \u2013 GSTService Tax2018 (11) TMI 976 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 6-11-2018Appeal No. ST\/30844\/2018 – A\/31466\/2018Service TaxMr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P. Venkata … Continue reading “SH Rao Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur \u2013 GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15091","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a small time operator without adequate knowledge of the service tax procedures and CENVAT Credit Rules and therefore had taken CENVAT credit wrongly on several inputs including the two amounts in dispute. On being pointed he had reversed the amounts along with interest except the interest on these two amounts. The appeal has been filed seeking that the interest under Section 75 and the penalty under Section 78 equal to the demand may also be set aside. They have not disputed the recovery of the CENVAT credit. Insofar as the amount of interest is concerned, it was the contention in their appeal that they had adequate balance in their credit and hence no interest was liable to be paid because they had not utilized the disputed amounts. Learned Counsel fairly concedes that this position is not correct and they had, in fact, utilized the credit and therefore were liable to pa<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records.<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n