Cenvat credit cannot be denied for procedural infirmities if the document, irrespective of its nomenclature, contains substantial particulars proving receipt of services and payment of tax, and the invocation of the extended period of limitation is impermissible against State instrumentalities without evidence of willful suppression.

HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA

1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Resident Engineer, Rajasthan Housing Board¹1. the Appellant, against the Order-in-Original No.UDZ/EXCUS/000/COM/20/2019-20 dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Udaipur, which confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.3,07,51,666/- alongwith interest and imposed penalties.

2. The brief facts are that the appellant having service tax registration were engaged in rendering/ receiving taxable services of Construction services, Construction of residential Complex, Commercial/ Industrial buildings or Civil structure, Transport of goods by road, renting of immoveable service, legal consultancy service & other taxable services. During the course of Audit of the Appellant, the department noticed that the Appellant had wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.3,07,51,666/- without having proper documents prescribed under Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the period from July, 2012 to 30.06.2017. The credit was taken by the Appellant on the basis of running account bills prepared by engineers of the appellant showing measurement of work and amount to be paid to the Contractor. The Department opined that these running account bills did not contain the mandatory information required for availing Cenvat credit, therefore they cannot be termed as proper document for availing Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. The Department also noted that the Appellant had taken the Cenvat credit during the period July, 2012 to June,2017 amounting to Rs.2,38,50,562/- in their CENVAT register by reverse calculation from amount paid/payable to the Contractors, but the ST-3 Returns filed by the Appellant for the same period showed the amount as Rs.3,07,51,666/-. The mismatch between the amount shown in ST-3 returns and Cenvat register was not substantiated. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 19.06.2019 was issued to the Appellant for recovery of Cenvat Credit of Rs.3,07,51,666/- along with applicable interest and alleging penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The subject Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of CGST& Central Excise, Udaipur vide Order-in-Original No. 03/ST/JDR/2019-20/JC dated 28.06.2019, wherein adjudicating authority has disallowed and order to recover the Cenvat Credit Rs.3,07,51,666/- alongwith applicable interest; imposed penalty of Rs.3,07,51,666/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the demand till September 2016 is barred by the normal period of limitation and the entire Cenvat credit cannot be denied in the impugned order. He submitted that extended period of limitation was not invokable as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 19.6.2019 for the period July 2012 to June 2017. He submitted that the Show Cause Notice had failed to cite any positive act on part of the Appellant to suppress any information. He further stated that it was undisputed that the Appellant had disclosed the availment of Cenvat credit for the relevant period in the ST-3 returns. In fact, the present demand was proposed on the basis of Cenvat credit figures disclosed in the ST-3 returns by the Appellant. Thus, there was no suppression of any facts on the part of the Appellant. Further, mere fact that the appellant