The Tax Publishers 2019 TaxPub(ST) 0931 (CESTAT-Bang)

 

Lavie Fitness v. CCE, ST

 

FINANCE ACT, 1994

--Cenvat credit--Health club and fitness serviceAllowability of----Where assessee failed to produce any document to claim the Cenvat credit of service tax paid for input services availed of while providing health club and fitness services, revenue authorities had rightly denied the credit of input service in the absence of valid claim made by assessee. --Assessee was providing taxable service of health club and fitness services without getting registered, without payment of Service Tax and without filing the returns. Demand of service tax was raised against assessee. Assessee contended that he was entitled to Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on various input services which was denied by revenue. Held: Contention of assessee was not tenable because it failed to produce any document to claim the Cenvat credit for input services. In reply to SCN also, it did not claim the Cenvat credit of input services and therefore, revenue authorities had rightly denied the credit of input service in the absence of valid claim made by assessee.

Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Rule 2(L)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. :


 

FINANCE ACT, 1994

--Penalty under section 78--Liability confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation admitted by assesseeQuantum of penalty when transactions were recorded in books----Once assessee had accepted the liability confirmed by invoking the extended period then, assessee was liable to pay penalty as per the provisions of section 78. However, the quantum of penalty was restricted to fifty per cent of service tax amount in terms of proviso to section 78(1) because demand was raised on the basis of transactions recorded by assessee in its books of account. --Assessee was providing taxable service of health club and fitness services without getting registered, without making payment of Service Tax and without filing the returns. Assessee assailed imposition of penalty under section 78 contending that there was no mala fide intention on assessee's part because all the transactions were recorded in the books of account and service tax was not paid due to lack of knowledge. Held: Once assessee had accepted the liability confirmed by invoking the extended period then, assessee was liable to pay penalty as per the provisions of section 78. However, the entire demand was raised on the basis of the books of accounts shown by assessee where all the transactions were recorded, therefore, in view of proviso to section 78(1), assessee was liable to pay the penalty up to fifty per cent of the Service Tax.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com