P. Anjani Kumar DECISION
P. Anjani Kumar, Member (T)
1. The appellants, M/s Antares Services Private Limited, have registered themselves for provision of services like "Manpower Recruitment/Supply Agency Service" and "Commercial Training or Coaching Service"; however, during the impugned period i.e. 2014-15 to 2016-17, they provided only Manpower Recruitment/Supply Agency Service; A.G, Audit conducted an audit of the records of the appellants and noticed that the appellants have not filed ST-3 Returns for the period April 2014; Department issued a show-cause notice dated 13.11.2019 to the appellant, inter alia, relying on the data supplied by the Income Tax Department; it was alleged that service tax of Rs. 6,72,669/-should be recovered from them along with interest; the appellants contented that they have enough credit to pay the demanded service tax and have discharged the same whereas Department contended that the appellants have taken credit on the invoices beyond the permissible period of one year and therefore, credit is not admissible; the demand raised in the said show-cause notice was confirmed by the Original Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority. Hence, this appeal.
2. Shri Om Prakash, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants have availed input services like Renting of Property, CA Services, Service from Monster.Com etc. and utilized the same for provision of output services; they have paid discharged duty on the cum-tax value in terms of Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and have in effect paid service tax excess by Rs. 6,781; it was not correct for the Commissioner (Appeals) to deny the credit on the ground that it was taken beyond a period of six months; in terms of Rules 3 & 4, the appellants can avail CENVAT credit on the input services availed and the same shall be utilized only to the extent such credit is available on the last day of the month or quarter as the case may be for payment of duty or tax relating to that month or the quarter as the case may be. He submits, moreover, that the demand is raised on third-party information and therefore, cannot be sustained. He relies on the following:
• Sapanda Spoorthy Financial Ltd.-MANU/IH/0442/2015 : 2016 (06) LCX 0169.
• J.R. Herbal Care India Ltd.-MANU/CE/0113/2010 : 2010 (03) LCX 0058.
• M/s Origin Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd.-2021-TIOL-417-CESTAT-MADRAS.
• Balaji Machinery-2022-TIOL-778-CESTAT-KOLKATTA.
3. Learned Counsel further submits that the demands pertain to the period 2014 to 2017 and the show-cause notice was issued on 31.11.2019(sic); there is no suppression of material facts on the part of the appellants; therefore, the demand is time barred. He relies on the following cases:
• Chemphar Drugs & Liniments-MANU/SC/0112/1989 : 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC).
• Padmini Products-MANU/SC/0338/1989 : 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC).
• Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company-MANU/SC/1239/1995 : 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC).
• Uniworth Textiles Ltd.-MANU/SC/0060/2013 : 2013-TIOL-13-SC-CUS.
• Continental Foundation Jt. Venture-TIOL-1312-CESTAT-MUM.
4. Shri Ravinder Jangu, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the ST-3 Returns submitted by the appellants for the period April to Septem........