2026-VIL-1203-CESTAT-DEL-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Demand based on difference between balance sheet and ST-3 returns - Whether demand can be sustained when appellant claims different accounting methods were adopted for Balance Sheet and ST-3 returns – HELD - The appellant's contention that balance sheets prepared under accounting standard AS-7 and ST-3 returns filed under point of taxation rules would naturally show different figures has merit and requires proper verification through examination of documents evidencing receipt of advances, payment of service tax thereon, and adjustment of such amounts. The Commissioner had rejected the appellant's submission without giving it an opportunity to present documentary evidence and reconcile the two sets of figures. The tribunal finds this a fit case for remand as it involves factual disputes requiring verification of whether the difference in figures resulted from legitimate accounting differences or actual short payment of service tax. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide afresh after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present its case with all relevant supporting documents - The impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed by way of remand - Cenvat Credit - Availment under Notification No. 26/2012-ST - Whether Cenvat credit on input services can be availed when benefit of exemption notification is taken on goods – HELD - While the undisputed legal position is that if an assessee avails the benefit of the abated rate notification, it is not entitled to Cenvat credit on inputs, the appellant's contention that input services remain available for Cenvat credit as there is no restriction in the notification itself requires factual verification and establishment of nexus between input services and output services. As the Commissioner has not properly examined this factual dispute regarding the nexus between the input services claimed and the output services provided, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner to decide afresh after giving the appellant an opportunity to substantiate its claim with relevant evidence.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page