SERVICE TAX Appeal No. 10748 of 2021-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No AHM-EXCUS-003-APP-8-2021-22 dated
29.04.2021 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax
AHMEDABAD]
INDUSTRIAL EXTENSION BUREAU
VERSUS
C.S.T.-SERVICE TAX – AHMEDABAD
APPEARANCE:
Shri Bishan R. Shah, CA for the Appellant
Shri. Tara Prakash, Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the
Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR
FINAL ORDER NO.A / 10067 /2023
DATE OF HEARING: 12.01.2023
DATE OF DECISION: 19.01.2023
RAMESH NAIR
The brief facts of the case are that a demand of Rs.17,59,069/- was
raised against the appellant on the ground that as per the ST-3 return as of
June, 2017, the closing balance of Cenvat Credit comes to Rs. 1,01,53,009/-,
whereas the appellants have shown the closing balance of Rs. 1,19,12,078/,
accordingly, the demand was confirmed. The same was upheld by the Learned
Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, the present appeal has been filed.
Shri Bishan R. Shah, Learned CA submits that due to system glitches,
the credit of Rs. 31,67,294/- could not be updated in the ST-3 returns. Due
to which the difference has arisen. If the input credit instead of Rs.
14,45,546/- mentioned in the ST-3 returns, the correct amount of Cenvat
credit of Rs. 31,67,294/- is taken then the closing balance comes to Rs.
1,18,74,757/-. He submits that in fact actual excess closing balance is Rs.
37,321/- only which has been paid along with interest by the appellant.
Therefore, the present demand is not sustainable. He submits that all the
details of credit of Rs. 31,67,294/- along with invoices were submitted before
the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has
rejected the submission on the ground that there is no evidence that the
appellant have not taken the credit earlier. It is his submission that without
any basis the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has discarded the evidence as
produced before him. He submits that the appellant is a Government
Organizing, therefore, no doubt can be raised on the credibility of the
appellant, for this reason also Learned Commissioner (Appeals) raising the
doubt is without any basis.
Shri Tara Prakash, Learned Additional Commissioner (Authorized
Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of
the impugned order.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and
perused the records. I find that the demand was raised on the difference of
Cenvat credit balance shown as of June, 2017, in their ST-3 returns and the
actual closing balance. The claim of the appellant is that certain Cenvat credit
was left to be shown in ST-3 returns for the month of June, 2017, If the same
is considered the difference will come to only Rs. 37,321/-, which the appellant
have admittedly paid back along with interest. Now the limited issue to be
resolved is whether the credit claimed by the appellant for Rs. 31,67,294/- is
correct or otherwise. In this regard on perusal of the original order as well as
other documents, We find that appellant have submitted statement, wherein
complete details was given about the Cenvatable documents. It is also
observed that the balance of Cenvat Credit considering the credit of Rs.
31,67,294/- was also declared in the books of accounts by the appellant. This
evidence cannot be brushed aside on the presumption that the appellant might
have taken the credit earlier unless it is proved by the revenue. Therefore, in
my considered view the detail submitted by the appellant along with copies of
invoices no doubt can be raised that the appellant were entitled for the Cenvat
credit of Rs. 31,67,294/- on consideration of this credit the balance remains
is only Rs. 37,321/- which has been paid along with interest, with this payment
there is no demand exist. Accordingly I am of the considered view that
appellant are entitled for the Cenvat credit of Rs. 31,67,294/- . Consequently,
the demand raised in the impugned order except the demand of Rs. 37,321/-
, does not sustain. Hence the impugned order stands modified to the above
extent. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 19.01.2023)
RAMESH NAIR
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Leave a Reply