OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 1 of 11
Brief Facts of the Case:M/s. Akshay A Gandhi, Ahmedabad (here-in- after referred to as “the said
assessee” for the sake of brevity) is engaged in providing taxable services
under the category of Construction Services in respect of Commercial or
Industrial Buildings and Civil Structures (CCS), and is registered with this
office having Service Tax Registration No- AAFFG5547BST001.
1.2
The said service provider had filed the ST-3 Return electronically for
the period October-09 to March-10 on 25.04.2010. Scrutiny of the ST-3
returns revealed that the said service provider has discharged their service
tax liability for the above mentioned period as per the following details:Table -1
Period
Gross. Amt. received
Abatement @ 67% of
Gross amount
Claimed
Taxable Value @
33% of Gross
amount charged
Service Tax @ 10%
E. Cess @2% and
S.H.E.Cess @ 1%
total @3%
Total ST payable
ST paid by Cash
ST paid by CENVAT
Total ST paid
1.3
Oct, 2009-Dec,
2009
(All figures are in Rs.)
Jan, 2010Grand Total
March, 2010
12318259
3349111
15667370
8253234
2243904
10497138
4065025
1105207
5170232
406503
110521
517023
12195
3316
15511
418698
401666
17033
418699
113836
101233
12603
113836
532534
502899
29636
532535
Whereas, it appeared that, during the said period, the said assessee
had paid service tax under the category of Commercial Construction
Service after availing abatement of 67% of the Gross amount charged as
provided under Sr. No. 7 of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006.
From the aforesaid Table-1, it appeared that the noticee had availed
Cenvat Credit of Excise duty/Service Tax paid on inputs, capital goods
and input services under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and
had utilized the same for payment of Service Tax on the abated value of
Services provided by them in terms of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated
01.03.2006.
1.4
However, for the purpose of availing benefit under Notification
No.01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 it is stipulated as under:
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 2 of 11
Provided that this notification shall not apply in cases where, (i) the CENVAT credit of duty on inputs or capital goods or the CENVAT credit of
service tax on input services, used for providing such taxable service, has been
taken under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; or
(ii) the service provider has availed the benefit under the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.
12/2003-Service Tax, dated the 20th June, 2003[G.S.R. 503 (E), dated the 20th
June, 2003].
[emphasis provided]
1.5
The total Cenvat credit availed and utilized by the said assessee
during the said period is given below:TABLE-2
(All figures are in Rs.)
Month
Cenvat Credit
availed and
utilized (Rs.)
Education
Cess credit
availed and
utilized (Rs.)
Oct-Dec
16537
496
17033
Jan-March
12236
367
12603
Total
28773
863
29636
Period
Oct, 2009 to
March, 2010
1.6
Total
Credit
utilized
(Rs.)
It appeared that they had availed Cenvat Credit of Excise duty/ tax
paid on input/capital goods and input services to the extent of Rs.
29636/- under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the
exemption to the extent of 67% of the value in terms of Sr. No. 7 of the
Table contained in the Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006
availed by the noticee for rendering services under the category of
Commercial or industrial construction service was irregular and was not
entitled to the noticee.
1.7
Under the circumstances the exemption to the extent of 67% of the
value availed by the noticee was required to be withdrawn and service tax
on the full value charged by the noticee from their customers/clients was
required to be paid. In view thereof there appeared short payment of
Service Tax to the extent calculated below.
1.8
The actual Service Tax calculation after disallowing abatement as
discussed above, for the said assessee is as below:
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 3 of 11
TABLE-3
(All figures are in Rs.)
DETAILS OF SERVICE TAX PAYMENT AFTER DISALLOWING ABATEMENT BY M/S.
AKSHAY A GANDHI
PERIOD
(CCS)
ST paid ST paid ST paid
Gross Amt.
Received
ST
payable
(Cash)
(Cenvat)
TOTAL
Diff.S.T.
Payable
Oct-Dec(09-10)
12318259
1268781
401666
17033
418699
850082
Jan-March(09-10)
3349111
344958
101233
12603
113836
231122
Total
15667370
1613739
502899
29636
532535
1081204
1.9
Thus, it appeared that the said noticee by availing wrong exemption
to the extent of 67% of the value in terms of Notification No.1/2006-ST
dated
01.03.2006
as
amended,
had
short
paid
service
Rs.10,81,204/- for the services rendered during the period
tax
of
Oct 09 to
March-10, as calculated in the aforesaid table which is required to be
recovered from them under the provision of section 73(1) of the Finance
Act,1994 alongwith Interest under section 75 of the Finance Act,1994.
1.10 As per the provisions of Section 68, or rules made there under, who
fails to credit the tax or any part thereof, to the account of the Central
Government within the period prescribed, is liable to pay simple interest
(at such rate not below ten percent and not exceeding thirty six percent
per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by
notification in the official Gazette for the period) for the period by which
such crediting of the tax or any part thereof is delayed. Therefore, the said
assessee appeared to have contravened the provisions of Section 67 of the
Finance Act, 1994 in as much as that by wrongly availing the benefit of
Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 and the noticee had failed to
determine the correct value of taxable services provided by them;
contravened the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read
with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, in as much as, they failed to
determine and pay the correct amount of service tax. Further the
assessee’s contention to availment of exemption notification did not appear
to be correct.
1.11 In view of the discussions in the foregoing para, and on the basis of
evidences on record, it appeared that M/s Akshay A Gandhi, during the
afore-mentioned period had provided taxable service of “Commercial or
Industrial Construction Service” to their clients. For the said services of
construction, they had opted to avail the benefit of abatement under Sr.
No. 7 of Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, but failed to fulfill
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 4 of 11
the conditions of the said notification in as much as they had availed and
utilized Cenvat Credit accrued under their other services for payment of
service tax under the category of Construction services, and thus, were not
eligible to avail the benefit of said notification. It appeared that the said
assessee had, therefore, during the period of half-years Oct-09 to March10 short paid Service Tax of Rs.10,81,204/- which was required to be
recovered from them under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.
1.12 It also appeared that the said assessee has contravened the
provisions of Section 68 of the said Act in as much as they had failed to
pay service tax at the rate specified under Section 66 of the said Act and
thereby rendered themselves liable for
(i)
Penalty under Sections 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the failure to
make the payment of Service Tax in prescribed time limit ; and
(ii)
Penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the
contravention of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with
Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.
1.13 The said assessee appeared also liable to pay interest at the
appropriate rates for the period from due date of said payment of Service
Tax till the date of actual payment as per the provisions of Section 75 of
the Finance Act, 1994.
1.14 Therefore, M/s Akshay A Gandhi was issued a show cause notice
bearing F.No. STC-52/O&A/SCN/AAG/ADC/10-11 dated 29/03/2011
asking them as to why:i).the benefit of Sr.No.7 of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated
01.03.2006 should not be disallowed and as to why Service
Tax amounting to Rs. 10,81,204/- short paid/not paid on
“Commercial or Industrial Construction Service”, should not
be demanded and recovered from them under section 73(1) of
Finance Act, 1994 ;
ii).interest applicable should not be charged and recovered from
them under Section 75 of the finance Act, 1994 ;
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 5 of 11
iii).penalty under Sections 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the
failure to make the payment of Service Tax within prescribed
time limit should not be imposed upon them ; and
iv) penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 should not
be imposed upon them for contravention of Rule 6 of the
Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 67 of the Finance
Act, 1994.
2.
Defence reply:-
2.1
The assessee filed their defence reply vide their letter dated
23.05.2011 wherein they, inter-alia, submitted that they are engaged
in providing Commercial or Industrial Construction service and works
contract
service
and
have
service
tax
registration
no.
AAFFG5547BSTOO1; that they had filed ST-3 return for the period
October-2009 to March-2010 on 25.04.2010; that while rendering the
said service they had also used/sold goods to their client and availed
abatement of 67 per cent under notification No. 1/2006-ST dated
01.03.2006 and paid service tax on 33% of the value; that they had
not availed credit of inputs;
that they had inadvertently utilized
CENVAT credit of Rs.29,636/- towards payment of service tax for the
period October -2009 to March-2010; that they had reversed the said
credit and paid amount of Service tax along with interest to the
Government account.
2.2
They further submitted that they had availed benefit of abatement
of 67 per cent on commercial/industrial construction service under
Notification 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 and utilized CENVAT credit of
Rs.29,636/- inadvertently. The said amount of Rs.29,636/- and interest
of Rs.5,130/- has been paid vide Cheque No.5236587 dated 11.05.2011
incorporating the same in challan dated 11.05.2011.
2.3
In support of their claim, they submitted that in identical situation
exemption under notification 45/2003-C.E., dated 14-5-2003 in the case
of M/s Face Ceramics (P) Ltd, and question of allowing exemption under
No.1/2006-ST in the case of Ajitnath Tours & Travels is allowed by the
CESTAT, Ahmedabad wherein it was held that if credit taken is paid back
along with interest the conditional exemption granted under various
notifications are available. In their case as the inadvertently availed and
utilized CENVAT credit is paid back along with interest in cash, they are
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 6 of 11
eligible to avail abatement of 67% on commercial/industrial construction
service in terms of notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 in view of
the following decisions reported as under.
1.Face Ceramics (P.)Ltd. v. CCE 2010 (249)ELT 119( Trib.- Ahd.)
2.Ajitnath Tours & Travels v. CST Ahmedabad (2011)31 STT
49(Ahd.-CESTAT) (Mag.).
2.4
Accordingly, as they have correctly availed benefit under Notification
No.1/2006-ST, no penalties proposed under section 76, 77 or 78 of the
Finance act are impossible upon them.
2.5
Finally they request to drop the proceedings sought to be initiated
by the SCN No. F.No.STC-52/0&A/SCN/AAG/ADC/l0-11/2156 Dated
29.03.2011.
3.
Personal Hearing:
The personal hearing in the matter was fixed on
24.01.2012 vide this office letter dated 06.01.2012. No body
appeared. Next hearing was held on 27.02.12, wherein Shri Bishan
Shah, Chartered Accountant appeared and reiterated the reply filed
on 23.05.2011. He further submitted that Cenvat credit amount is
very less which has been reversed with interest, hence substantial
benefit of abatement should not be denied.
4.
4.1
Discussion & Finding:I have gone through the case records, content of show cause
notice, written submissions of the said service provider and record of
personal hearing.
4.2
The issue involved and to be decided is whether the abatement
of 67% from the value of taxable service
availed by the said service
provider under the provision of Notification No.1/2006-ST is correct or not
particularly when the assessee have availed Cenvat credit of input and
input service which were subsequently paid along with interest.
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
4.3
Page 7 of 11
The fact of the case emerges that when an assessee avail
Cenvat credit first, and availed benefit of the exemption notification which
restricts the availment of Cenvat credit. Prima facie it appeared that the
said act is in violation of the condition of notification. However,
subsequently reversal or payment of Cenvat credit which the assessee
availed had taken place. Whether in such a situation, can the exemption
be regularized when payment of Cenvat credit along with Interest taken
place subsequently is the question.
4.4.1
In this regard, I find that the issue is found to be settled way
back in the year of 1996 in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt.
Limited vs Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur reported as 1996(81)
ELT 3(SC).
4.4.2
I find that the said answer is given by the CESTAT,
Ahmedabad in the para 3 in the case of M/s Face Ceramics (P) Ltd.,
Versus Commissioner of C.Ex. Rajkot., reported at 2010 (249) E.L.T.
119 (Tri. - Ahmd.) on which the assessee has placed reliance.
4.4.3
I have gone through the text of the said decision which is
reproduced as under.
“Duty of Rs. 2,60,74,879/- stands confirmed against the appellant along with
imposition of penalty of identical amount on the ground that the benefit of
Notification No. 45/2003-C.E., dated 14-5-2003 availed by them, during the period,
2003-04 to 2006-07 in respect of Ceramic Tiles manufactured by them, was not
available inasmuch as the condition attached to the Notification does not stand
fulfilled by them. As per the condition, the benefit of concessional rate of duty was
available only - “If no credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to
the manufacture of said Ceramic Tiles has been taken under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.” As per the Revenue, appellants has availed credit in
respect of MS angels/bars, grinding moulds, thus violating the condition of the
Notification.
2. It is the appellant’s contention that the above goods cannot be considered to be
inputs and the credit has been availed as capital goods, in which case the condition
of the Notification would not stand contravened. In any case, submits the learned
Advocate that the credit of Rs. 4,76,146/- availed by them in respect of the above
items stands subsequently reversed by them along with interest of Rs. 1,62,233/-,
in which case the condition cannot be held to be contravened. He relies upon the
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Hello Minerals Water Pvt.
Limited v. UOI - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (H.C.-Allahabad.) laying down that
subsequent reversal of Modvat credit amounts to non-taking of credit on the
inputs. Learned Adv. also refers the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the
case of CCE v. Ashima Dyecot Limited - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 580 (Guj.) = 2008 (12)
S.T.R. 701 (Guj.) wherein the Tribunal’s decision laying down that even if reversal
of credit is as per the directions of the Tribunal, it has to be held as if no credit was
availed. We note that both the above decisions are based upon the declaration of
law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt.
Limited v. CCE - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.).
3. Though the above decision of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Limited was
placed before the adjudicating authority but he has not followed it, on the
ground that the reversal of credit was not made prior to clearance of the
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 8 of 11
goods. In terms of the above decision Hon’ble Gujarat High Court as also
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court which have held that such reversal, even if
made subsequently would amount as if no credit has been availed. In the
present case, the appellants have reversed the entire credit along with
interest. As such, it has to be held as if no credit was availed. If that be so,
the condition of the Notification cannot be held to be contravened, in which
case, the benefit of the same would be available to the assessee.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that they would not
claim re-credit of the Modvat amount already debited by them. As such, we are of
the view that only objection for denial of benefit of Notification by the Revenue no
longer survive. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal
with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed
off in above terms.
[ emphasis provided]”
4.4.4
I have also gone through the decision passed in the case of
Ajitnath Tours & Travels Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated: September 9,
2010)
reported
as
2009-TIOL-2298-CESTAT-AHM
:
AHMEDABAD
CESTAT which is also relied by the said assessee. I find that in the said
decision it was held by the Hon’ble CESTAT-Ahmedabad as under.
Rent-a-cab provider – appellant procuring vehicle from another service provider on
payment of service tax and giving vehicle on hire to client - service tax paid by
claiming abatement of 60% under notification 1/2006-ST and by adjusting
component of service tax already paid – demand raised by denying abatement –
since the appellant has reversed the credit with interest, benefit of notification can
be extended - Tribunal decision in Face Ceramics Pvt. Ltd.
4.4.5
Further, I have also referred various decisions delivered in
identical situation by the various CESTAT. Some of the few are as under.
(i)
M/s Khyati Tours & Travels Versus Commissioner, C.Ex.,
Ahmedabad
reported at 2011 (24) S.T.R. 456 (Tri.-Ahmd.). The
text of relevant para is reproduced below:“4. It is seen that the appellant had reversed the wrongly availed Modvat
credit along with interest, the same will have the effect as if no credit was
availed by the appellants. The law on the above point is very clear and
stands settled by various decisions of judicial as also the quasi judicial
authorities. For the sake of convenience we may refer to the order passed by
Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Om Shanti Travels, Ahmedabad being
Order-in-Appeal No. 197/2010(STC)/MM/ Commr(A)/Ahd dated 9-8-2010,
wherein after summarising the entire case law, the benefit stands extended
to the assessee. We reproduce the relevant paragraphs from the said order :“8. The appellant cited the case of M/s. Hello Minerals Water Private
Limited v. UOI reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (Allahabad). I have gone
through this judgment. In Para 18 of this judgment it has been held by the
High Court that if the exemption is subject to non-availment of modvat credit
on inputs, the subsequent reversal of modvat credit amounts to non-taking
of credit on inputs and the benefit of exemption notification number 15/94C.E., is to be granted, even when reversal of credit on inputs was done at
Tribunal stage.
8.1 The above judgment of the High Court is based on five member bench
decision of the Tribunal in the case of Franco Italian Company Private
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 9 of 11
Limited v. C.C.E., 2000 (120) E.L.T. 792. This judgment in turn based on the
Supreme Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wire Private
Limited v. C.C.E., Nagpur, 1996 (81) E.L.T. 3.
8.2 I have gone through the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s judgment in
the above mentioned case, and I find that it has been laid down/held that
debit entry in modvat credit account indicates as if no credit was taken on
such inputs. This judgment has been followed in a number of Tribunal
judgments. The latest has been a case of the Commissionerate of Service Tax
itself in the case of CST, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Amola Holdings Private Limited.
This judgment was given in order No. A/1148/WZB/AHD/09 dated 1-62009. This judgment also stands accepted by the Commissionerate and
hence I follow the same and hold that reversal or debit of modvat credit
in this case of 9595 rupees amounts to non-availment of modvat credit
and accordingly, the appellant is eligible to the benefit under
Notification No. 1/2006.”
[emphasis provided]”
(ii) CESTAT in case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad
V/s Amola Holdings Pvt.Ltd., reported at
2009 (16) S.T.R. 46
(Tri. - Ahmd.), wherein it was held as under.
Penalty - Cenvat credit of Service tax - Exemption under Notification No. 1/2006S.T. availed and Cenvat credit of Service tax on input services availed - Credit
reversed with interest on being pointed out of non-availability of benefit of
abatement of 67% under said notification - Credit not utilized - Precedent
decisions holding exemption admissible when credit reversed subsequently,
applicable - Impugned order setting aside penalty, sustainable - Rule 14 of Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004. [paras 1, 4, 5].
The relevant para 1,4 and 5 of the said decision are as sunder:1.M/s. Amola Holdings Private Limited are engaged in the business of providing
“Commercial or Industrial Construction Service” which is taxable from 10-9-2004
and “Construction of Complex” service taxable from 16-6-2005. Notification No.
1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006 provides that if the service provider avails Cenvat
credit on capital goods and inputs and input services, such service provider will
not be entitled for the benefit of abatement of 67% for the purpose of levy of
Service tax. The respondents voluntarily reversed the entire Cenvat credit and
interest thereon once it was pointed out to them that they cannot avail the benefit
of Notification if they have availed the benefit of Service tax credit on the input
services. However, impugned order has been passed whereby penalties have been
imposed on the respondents. However, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the
penalties imposed on the respondents relying upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. [1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)]. Hence the
appeal by the Revenue.
4. We have considered the submission made by both the sides. We find that the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bombay Dyg. & Mfg. Co. is not
applicable to the present facts of the case. As rightly pointed out by Shri Devan
Parikh, ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondents, since the advocate submitted
that the credit was never utilized and question as to whether availment of credit
and subsequent reversal would dis-entitle the assessee from exemption was not
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, we find that the decisions
cited by the ld. Advocate are applicable to the facts of the case directly and the
relevant paragraphs are reproduced :Para 3 of Precot Mill Ltd. v. CCE, Tirupati - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 356 (Tri.Chennai)
“3. We have given a careful consideration to the submissions. The only allegation
raised in the show cause notice against the appellants for denying the benefit of
the above Notification to them in respect of final product cleared from their factory
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 10 of 11
during March to June, 1999 is that they had availed and utilized input duty credit
and capital goods credit in the previous years (1997-98 & 1998-99). It has been
pointed out by learned counsel that an amount of Rs. 4,16,161/- equivalent to the
total credit availed and utilized during 1997-98 & 1998-99 was paid on 10-12005. If it were to be held that, in respect of finished goods removed from the
factory in a given financial year, the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of
Sl. No. 133 of the Table annexed to the above Notification would not be available
on account of input duty credit and capital goods credit having been availed and
utilized in the previous financial year, the appellant’s right to claim the benefit of
the Notification for the period first-above-mentioned stood restored to them with
the above payment of duty subsequently made for the period second-abovementioned (1997-98 & 1998-99). This contention is apparently supported by the
decisions cited by learned counsel. In the case of Franco Italian Co. Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) the Tribunal’s Larger Bench allowed SSI benefit under Notification No.
1/93-C.E. to the assessee in respect of specified goods subject to the condition
that the Modvat credit taken on the inputs utilized in the manufacture of such
specified goods be reversed. This view was followed, with approval, by the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. (supra).
Similarly, in the case of Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. (supra), the benefit of
Notification No. 452/86-C.E. was allowed to the assessee, subject to reversal of
credit on inputs. In the instant case also, we are of the considered view that, if the
aforesaid payment of
Rs. 4,61,161/- by the appellants is found to have
compensated the availment and utilization of input duty credit and capital goods
credit for the periods 1997-98 & 1998-99, the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-C.E.
can be allowed to them in respect of the finished goods cleared during the period
of dispute. In such a context, any particular word or expression used in Condition
No. 21 of the Notification does not arise for interpretation.”
Para 26 of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. UOI - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (ALL.)
“26. Thus all the Division Benches of the Tribunal have been following the Larger
Bench decision and have taken a consistent view that reversal of the credit can be
made even subsequent to the clearance of the final products. The impugned order
dated 1-10-2003 appears to be the only order which is contrary to the consistent
view taken so far.”
5.In view of the fact that the precedent decisions of the Tribunal and decision of
the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court are in favour of the assessee, we find no merits
in the appeal filed by the Revenue and reject the same.
4.5
In the case on hand, I find that the said assessee had paid
service tax under the category of Commercial Construction Service after
availing abatement of 67% of the Gross amount charged as provided under
Sr. No. 7 of Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. Further the
assessee had availed Cenvat Credit of Excise duty/Service Tax paid on
inputs, capital goods and input services under the provisions of Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 and had utilized the same for payment of Service Tax
on the abated value of Services provided by them in terms of Notification
No.1/2006-ST dated01.03.2006. The amount of Cenvat credit utilized was
Rs. 29,636/-.The same amount has been paid on 11.05.2011 with interest
of Rs. 5031/-. Therefore, I find that their case is identical case in light of
the aforesaid precedent laid down by various court and CESTAT.
4.6
Thus, I find that the facts of the case on hand and judicial
decisions are in favour of the said assessee and precedent laid down by
various courts and CESTAT is accepted by the department. Accordingly, I
OIO NO. 68 /STC-AHD/ADC(MKR)/2011-12
Page 11 of 11
find that the demand of service tax arisen on account of denial of benefit of
Notification No. 1/2006-ST is liable to be dropped.
4.7
In view of above discussion & Findings, I hold that the
demand of Rs.10,81,204/- against M/s. Akshay A Gandhi fails on merit.
Since demand fails, the question of charging interest & imposing penalty
does not arise, hence, the same also fails.
5.
Accordingly, I pass the following order;
ORDER
I, hereby, vacate the show cause notice bearing F.No. STC-
52/O&A/SCN/AAG/ADC/10-11 dated 29/03/2011 issued against
M/s Akshay A Gandhi, Ahmedabad. The show cause notice is
disposed of accordingly.
[ Dr. Manoj Kumar Rajak ]
Additional Commissioner,
Service Tax, Ahmedabad
F. No. STC-52/O&A/SCN/AAG/ADC/10-11
Date: 13.03.2012
By RPAD
To,
M/s Akshay A Gandhi,
307, Circle P. Opp. Panchayati Auto,
S G Road, Satellite, Polytechnic,
Ahmedabad-380015
Copy to:
i.
The Commissioner, Service Tax, Ahmedabad. (Attention Review
Cell).
ii.
iii.
The Assistant Commissioner, Division III, Service Tax, Ahmedabad.
The Superintendent, Range-XV, Div-III, Service Tax, Ahmedabad
with an extra copy of OIO to be delivered to the assessee and submit
the acknowledgement to this office.
iv.
Guard File.