" (1) Appeal No. ST/30099/2024 CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Single Member Bench Service Tax Appeal No. 30099 of 2024 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-SVTAX-AP2-558-2023-24, dated 21.12.2023 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad) M/s Sneha News Channel Ltd., .. APPELLANT H.No. 6-2-29/3/12, 3rd Floor, Doulat Plaza, Lakdi-ka-pool, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 004. VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax .. RESPONDENT Hyderabad – GST Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 004. APPEARANCE: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA for the Appellant. Shri V R Pavan Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. A/30349/2024 Date of Hearing:08.08.2024 Date of Decision:08.08.2024 [ORDER PER: A.K. JYOTISHI] M/s Sneha News Channel Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as appellant) are in appeal against order of the Order-in-Appeal dated 21.12.2023(impugned order) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original dated 30.09.2022 and rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. The issue in brief is that the appellants were providing taxable service and had not discharged correct service tax liability to the tune of Rs. 13,63,591/- by suppressing the gross value of Rs. 90,90,609/-, which was not declared in their statutory ST-3 returns during the financial year 2016- 17 and 2017-18 (First Quarter). Therefore, show cause notice was issued by (2) Appeal No. ST/30099/2024 the Department for recovery of service tax amount of Rs. 13,63,591/- which was based on differential value declared in ST-3 returns (which were not filed) with value declared to the Income Tax Authority under ITR. The show cause notice was issued invoking extended period and also proposed for penalty under Section 78 and other provisions. 3. On adjudication, their main ground of defence is that they had sufficient credit in balance, which they could have discharged for making the payment. They also relied on certain case laws to substantiate that a) Cenvat Credit cannot be denied merely on account of non-filing of the ST-3 returns. b) There being catena of judgments that substantial benefit cannot be denied merely on procedural lapse. (i) Union of India Vs Suksha International & Nutal Genms & Anr [1989 (39) ELT 503 (SC)] (ii) Union of India Vs A.V.Narasimhaulu [1983 (13) ELT 1534 (SC)] (iii) Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner [1991 (8) TMI 83 (SC)] (iv) Principal Commissioner, CGST & CE GST, Chhattisgarh Vs M/s Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd., [2019 (12) TMI 1130 (CHC)] They further informed to the Adjudicating Authority that once having realised that they had the credit availability and were aware of the non-filing of service tax returns, they immediately filed the same and availed Cenvat Credit and utilised the same to discharge the service tax liability. The Adjudicating Authority gave his reasons for not accepting this availability of Cenvat Credit, which could have been used to discharging admitted service tax liability. (3) Appeal No. ST/30099/2024 4. Learned Advocate has mainly argued on two grounds. First, that the invocation of extended period is not correct in the facts of the case as they had tried to file returns but because of technical errors they were not able to file during the relevant time due to some technical error and in support of that they have screen shots which would indicate that they had tried to file their ST returns in time. However, one being made aware of service tax liability on account of difference, they had filed service tax returns as well as discharged the duty liability, utilising Cenvat Credit available to them. He further states that these credits were duly recorded in their books of accounts during the relevant time in support of which they had furnished ledger also in support of that these invoices were genuinely issued and received by them. Therefore, despite this, invocation of extended period is bad in law. On the second point that the liability pointed by the Department has already been discharged by them by way of filing of service tax returns for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and discharging the liability by utilising the credit available with them. He is not disputing the liability on account of service tax, per se. 5. On the other hand, Learned AR reiterates order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that the credit has been rightly denied to the appellant as the grounds for denying the credit has been well explained in the Order-in-Original, which has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) He further points out that the argument of the appellant that they had tried to file service tax return during material time i.e. 2016-17 and 2017-18 is not supported by any evidence on record. Therefore, he further argues that the show cause notice is not time barred because the appellant has failed to file the ST-3 returns in time. (4) Appeal No. ST/30099/2024 6. Heard both the sides and perused the documents. 7. I find that there is no dispute as regards the chargeability of the service tax on the services provided by the appellant to the recepients and neither side is disputing the same. However, what is being disputed, apart from the limitation aspect, is that the liability pointed out by the Department has already been met by the appellant when they filed the service tax return on 03.12.2021, wherein, they have already availed and utilised the credit admissible to them. I further find that though it is an admitted position that the ST-3 returns have been filed, it is not clear whether any dispute has been raised by the Department against such filed ST-3 returns or any separate action has been initiated for denying the benefit of credit claimed in the said ST-3 returns by the appellant. I further find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue of non-entitlement of credit in a rather cryptic manner by merely reiterating the grounds taken by the Original Adjudicating Authority. He has not independently examined various case laws and the facts which were advanced by the appellant in support of their being eligible to take those credit. Relevant portion of impugned order is cited below for ease of reference: “6. Further on perusal of the records it is observed that they had availed the credit on Inputs and Capital Goods for which they have not produced any valid evidence to prove that they have availed and utilised the Cenvat Credit before that was declared in the returns which are found to be defective as mentioned below: 1) The documents doesn’t bear the valid tax payment details eligible to take Cenvat Credit under CCR, 2004. 2) The documents are not addressed to the notice and their premises. 3) As per the description in the invoices they don’t qualify to be inputs or capital goods.” 8. It is observed that in his findings, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not effectively addressed the issues raised by the appellant in support of their (5) Appeal No. ST/30099/2024 being eligible for credit. Various grounds for denying the credit has to be evaluated in the backdrop of the factual matrix and various case laws relied upon by the appellant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to evaluate all the evidences and case laws adduced by the appellant and after hearing the same, he should decide whether they are entitled for such credit as claimed and availed by them or otherwise. In case, they are entitled, either in part or whole then the benefit of said credit is to be extended towards the liability pointed out by the Department. The appellants should provide all documentary evidence in support of their having sufficient eligible credit to meet the liability during the material time for which the demand has been raised 9. As far as the ground of limitation is concerned, despite the Learned Advocate raising various grounds, I find that the matter needs to be re- examined in the light of evidences on record and certain evidences as argued by the Learned Advocate i.e screen shots of their having tried to file ST-3 returns during the relevant time, correspondence with the Department in this regard etc., may have to be taken into consideration. Therefore, I am leaving the issue of eligibility of credit and limitation open, which will be decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) after going through all the supporting evidences and relevant case laws cited by the appellant. 10. Therefore, Appeal is disposed off by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals). (Dictated and Pronounced in open court) (A.K. JYOTISHI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) jaya "