Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rathi Steel & Power Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : Service Tax Appeal No.78305 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 19/07/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Rathi Steel & Power Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

As regards invocation of extended period of Limitation, I find that the Appellant had made categorical submissions in this regard which finds mention in the order in appeal but there is no finding on the same. In any case, when the issue is no more res integra that where the assessee is entitled to claim cenvat credit of the tax paid under RCM, there cannot be any question of invocation of extended period. It is also a settled legal position that where there were divergent views on the issue and even if it is ultimately settled against the assessee, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. It is also an admitted fact that the entire case was made out on the basis of information available in statutory books of I find that the very basis of the show cause notice is the audit objection meaning thereby that the entire demand was raised on the basis of information found available in statutory books of the Appellant and hence even otherwise, there cannot be any scope for invocation of extended period.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER

These two appeals have been filed by the appellant against the orders of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhubaneswar who has upheld the orders of the Adjudicating authority confirming demand on account of service tax on Goods Transport Agency (‘GTA’) services and Manpower Services in respective orders. In both the appeals, demand relates to liability of service received under reverse charge mechanism (‘RCM’).

2.The Appellant has its manufacturing facilities in the State of Odisha and during the period 2012-13 had central excise registration as a manufacturer of excisable goods. During the course of EA-2000 audit, the auditors pointed out that the Appellant did not pay service tax under RCM in respect of GTA services (Appeal No.ST/78305/2018) and for manpower security services (Appeal No.ST/78306/2018) respectively. On such basis, two Show Cause Notices, both dated 26.04.2016 were issued demanding service tax along with interest and penalty. Both the lower authorities did not agree with the submissions of the Appellant. Hence the present appeals before the Tribunal.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031