Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi): Service Tax Appeal No. 54911 Of 2023
Appeal Number : 29/02/2024
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)

The case of South Eastern Coalfields Limited versus the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, adjudicated by the CESTAT Delhi, revolves around a service tax demand imposed on the appellant without sufficient proof. The dispute arose from a comparison between ST-3 returns filed by the appellant from April 2015 to June 2017 and specific ledger account balances in the Trial Balance for the same period. The Revenue authorities alleged that the differences between these figures represented taxable services on which due service tax had not been paid, proposing a demand of Rs. 11,36,80,999.

However, the appellant contested this demand, arguing that it was proposed solely based on the differences between figures in the Trial Balance and ST-3 returns, without examining the nature of the entries in the ledger accounts or establishing whether these amounts were for taxable services. The appellant emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue, especially since the allegations of non-payment or short payment of service tax were made based purely on differential figures.

The appellant further argued that the differences between the figures in the Trial Balance and ST-3 returns were inherent and well within the knowledge of the Department, as no demand had been raised on similar differentials in previous periods. Additionally, the appellant highlighted the applicability of Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules for the Financial Year 2015-16, emphasizing that excess service tax paid in one service category could be adjusted against short payment in another, which the Adjudicating Authority failed to allow.

Regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation for demands related to the Financial Year 2016-17 and up to June 2017, the appellant argued for the principle of Revenue Neutrality, asserting that since the entire demand was under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, the appellant would have been entitled to avail Cenvat Credit, rendering the demand hit by limitation.

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