NIPPON KOEI INDIA PVT. LIMITED Versus CCT, SECUNDERABAD GST
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 1041 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 18-12-2018
APPEAL No. ST\/30780\/2018 – A\/31570\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nShri G.S.V. Prasad, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant.
\nShri C. Mallikharjuna Reddy, Superintendent \/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: Mr. P.V. Subba Rao
\n1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-SVTAX- SC-AD1-052-17-18 Dated 23.03.2018. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant herein is engaged in providing taxable services to their clients and have been registered with Service Tax Department. During the verification of records by the Audit, it was found that appellant had taken CENVAT Credit on common input services which were used for both taxable and exempted services. It was also found that they have not maintained separate accounts as required under Rule 6 (2) of<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ch 2014. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the appellant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 18,90,121\/- as 6% of the value of exempted services in terms of Rule 6(3) (i) of CCR 2004 and (b) whether the penalties are imposable on appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ained a separate account for the exempted projects and have not availed CENVAT Credit on the same. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" NIPPON KOEI INDIA PVT. LIMITED Versus CCT, SECUNDERABAD GSTService Tax2018 (12) TMI 1041 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 18-12-2018APPEAL No. ST\/30780\/2018 – A\/31570\/2018Service TaxMr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri G.S.V. Prasad, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant. Shri C. Mallikharjuna Reddy, Superintendent \/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. P.V. Subba … Continue reading “NIPPON KOEI INDIA PVT. LIMITED Versus CCT, SECUNDERABAD 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-15597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15597","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=15597"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15597\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\ne) An amount of Rs. 2,97,730\/- being irregular availment of input service tax credit on ineligible services and excess credit for the period 2012- 13 to 2014-15.
\nf) Why interest should not be demanded from them on the above amounts.
\ng) Why penalties should not be imposed under Rule 15(3) of CCR 2004 and under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994.
\n2. After following due process of law, the lower authority dropped all the demands. However, on an appeal by the Revenue, the first appellate authority has modified the order of lower authority as follows:-
\n(i) Confirmed the demand of Rs. 18,90,121\/- holding that the appellant had not maintained separate records as required under Rule 6(2) of CCR 2004. He held that it is impossible to maintain separate accounts for the services such as telephone services, photo copying services, common services for all output services (both taxable and exempted).
\n(ii) With regard to non payment of service tax of Rs. 11,56,727\/- and irregular credit o<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Ld. Representative of the appellant submits that it is incorrect to say that they have not maintained separate accounts for the taxable and exempted projects. In fact, they have maintained separate records for each of their projects which is a fact which can be verified. He further submits that they have produced the details of these accounts before the lower authority as well as the first appellate authority and the lower authority has dropped the demands accordingly, while the first appellate authority has confirmed the same. He also produced their records before the Bench.
\n5. Ld. DR points out that the appellant has availed CENVAT Credit not only on inputs used in the projects but also on input services used in their Corporate Office. He draws my attention to the details of the input <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. On the question of penalties, the appellant submits that there were some mistakes in taking credit and in those cases they have conceded and paid the amount with interest and they had no malafide intention in evading service tax or availing irregular CENVAT Credit, therefore all penalties may be dropped. Ld. DR on the other hand submits that in their ST-3 returns, the appellant has clearly indicated that they have maintained separate accounts whereas the facts show that it is impossible even to maintain separate accounts in respect of common input services availed in the Corporate Office. Ld. Representative of the appellant concedes that it is not possible to maintain separate accounts for the services availed in the Corporate Office.
\n7. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The short point to be decided is whether the appellant had availed credit on <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n