M\/s Integral Trading and Logistics Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam – GST
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 681 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 23-1-2019
Appeal No. ST\/30684\/2018 – A\/30127\/2019
Service Tax
Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nShri T. Satya Murthy, Advocate for the Appellant.
\nShri Mir Anwar Mohiuddin, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: P. Venkata Subba Rao
\nThis appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUST-001-APP-234-235-17-18 dated 22.02.2018.
\n2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant provides services to their clients and is also availing CENVAT credit as per the rules. In respect of some services rendered by them, they had charged their clients for their services more than what should they have paid. Thereafter, they had raised credit notes thereby returning the excess amount which they collected from the customers. As they initially charged excess a<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ards reimbursable expenditure to various port expenditures and Customs duties, wherein you are acting as pure agent. The other credit notes are issued against excess amount charges, service disallowed, invoices cancelled etc. During discussion, you have informed that you have taken the CENVAT credit on these 'credit notes', as Service Tax had already been paid on full value of invoices against which the credit notes were issued. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n der Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules. Corresponding changes have also been in entries at in E2, E4, F2 & F4 of the return. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking to recover the irregularly availed CENVAT credit under Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was also proposed to demand and interest under Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was also proposed to impose penalties under Rule 15(3) read with Section 78 of the Finance Act under Section 77(2) for filing improper returns. After following due process, the Original Authority confirmed the demands raised with interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority who upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Integral Trading and Logistics Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam – GSTService Tax2019 (2) TMI 681 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 23-1-2019Appeal No. ST\/30684\/2018 – A\/30127\/2019Service TaxMr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri T. Satya Murthy, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Mir Anwar Mohiuddin, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. … Continue reading “M\/s Integral Trading and Logistics Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam – 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-16727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16727","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=16727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nA 'credit note' means; A form or letter sent by a seller to a buyer, stating that a certain amount has been credited to the buyer's account. A credit note is issued in various situations to correct a mistake, such as when;
\n1) An invoice amount is overstated,
\n2) Correct discount rate is not applied,
\n3) Goods spoil within guaranty period, or
\n4) They do not meet the buyer's specifications and are returned.
\nThe Board vide, Notification No. 3\/2011-ST, dated 01.03.2011, had amended the Service Tax Rules to the extend as detailed below:
\n“(3) where an ass<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the entire mistake committed by them was taking credit under CCR, 2004 instead of taking credit under Rule 6<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n