9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether adjustments made by the applicants in their Cenvat account are permissible. 2. Whether the applicants are entitled to claim a refund for excess/wrong payment of tax. 3. Whether the applicants have made out a prima facie case for waiver of the entire demand. Analysis: 1. The applicants, who render telecom services, had doubts regarding the treatment of certain charges collected by them in connection with exempted services. They made cash deposits to rectify excess debits in their Cenvat account, claiming it as a recasting of accounts. The learned advocate argued that these adjustments were permissible based on precedents. However, the Jt. CDR contended that such adjustments without a refund claim constitute double mistakes. The Tribunal observed that the applicants rectified excess credit utilization but questioned their entitlement to fresh credit without a satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal also noted the requirement of departmental sanction for corrections in accounts, as per a decision by the Larger Bench. 2. The Jt. CDR emphasized that if there were excess or erroneous tax payments, the applicants should have applied for a refund following the law on unjust enrichment. The Tribunal concurred, highlighting the need for proper officer sanction for credit or refund without unjust enrichment provisions. While acknowledging the revenue-neutral nature of the exercise due to payment of interest, the Tribunal held that the applicants did not establish a prima facie case for the waiver of the entire demand. No plea of financial hardship was made, further impacting the decision. 3. Considering all facts, the Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit a specified amount within a stipulated timeframe and report compliance. Upon the mentioned deposit, the balance tax and penalty were waived, and recovery stayed pending appeal disposal. The stay application was disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal's decision pronounced in open court.
|
