Page 126 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

212 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37

Since the impugned order is common, both the appeals are being disposed of by
this common order.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant are engaged
in providing the taxable services under the categories of ‘restaurant services’,
‘accommodation services’, ‘mandap keeper’, ‘maintenance and repair’, ‘banking
and financial’, ‘health club and fitness centre services’, ‘security agency’, ‘busi-
ness auxiliary services’, ‘internet cafe’, and ‘renting of immovable property ser-
vices’. The appellant is paying service tax under the category of accommodation
services, restaurant services after availing of abatement of 50% and 70% respec-
tively on the gross value of receipt as provided vide Notification No. 1/2006-S.T.,
dated 1-3-2006, as amended vide Notification No. 34/2011-S.T., dated 25-4-2011.
For the remaining services, they paid service tax at the prescribed rate applicable.
As per the conditions of the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006, as
amended, the abatement shall not apply in cases where the Cenvat credit of duty
paid on inputs or capital goods or the Cenvat credit of service tax on input ser-
vices has been taken for providing such services. The appellant avails Cenvat
credit on input services and utilizes the same for payment of service tax. On veri-
fication of the Trial balance during the period April, 2008 to March, 2012, it was
noticed that they have provided both taxable and exempted services during the
said period. On scrutiny of the ST-3 returns filed by the appellant for the same
period, it was seen that they have not declared the value of exempted services in
their returns. The appellant is maintaining a general credit ledger for the com-
mon input services availed/utilized. Department entertained the view that the
appellants are providing taxable as well as exempted services but not maintain-
ing the separate accounts which is required as per Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit
Rules (CCR). On this allegation, after investigation of the whole case, two show-
cause notices were issued as stated in the table above. The Commissioner after
the due process, has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 69,76,592/- in
SCN dated 21-10-2013, and Rs. 10,80,673/- in another SCN dated 15-5-2014,
along with penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 as shown in the table above.
Aggrieved by the said order, appellant have filed the present appeals.
3. Heard both sides and perused the records.
4.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned or-
der is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly ap-
preciating the definition of exempted service as provided in the CCR from time
to time. He further submitted that the Cenvat credit availed and utilized in the
present case can be broadly categorized as follows :-
(i) Demand relating to the period from 1-4-2008 to 30-4-2011, Cenvat
availed Rs. 8,30,601/-, Cenvat utilized Rs. 6,32,576/-;
(ii) Demand relating to the period from 1-5-2011 to 30-6-2012, Cenvat
availed Rs. 1,67,420/-, Cenvat utilized Rs. 3,44,701/-; and
(iii) Demand relating to the period from 1-7-2012 to 31-3-2013, Cenvat
availed Rs. 12,98,319/-, Cenvat utilized Rs. 14,51,146/-.
4.2 He further submitted that for each period, the demand of service
tax can be discussed as follows :-
Demand for the period from 1-4-2008 to 30-4-2011
The demand for the period has been confirmed alleging that the appel-
lants are getting income from exempted services being accommodation income
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  126