2014 (8) TMI 345 - AT - Service Tax

Suo moto adjustment of excess payment in subsequent year - Rule 6 of service tax Rules, 1994 - Held that - Adjustment of excess amount paid in the month of April 2009 was mainly denied on the ground that appellant had not produced the evidence to show that the excess payment was made on account of delayed receipt of details of payments towards taxable services. It is accepted that appellant has Centralized Registration and they have taken a definite stand in their reply to SCN that excess payment was due to a belated receipt of the details of payments from their other offices - appellant should be given an opportunity to produce the evidence before the adjudicating authority in the interest of justice - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:

1. Adjustment of excess tax payment under Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
2. Centralized Registration and entitlement for adjustment under Rule 6(4B)(ii).
3. Requirement of intimation to jurisdictional officer for adjustment.
4. Opportunity to produce evidence before adjudicating authority.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, engaged in providing various services, made excess tax payments in April 2009, adjusting them in subsequent months. A show cause notice was issued for not conforming to Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, proposing a tax demand, interest, and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the tax demand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision.

2. The appellant claimed entitlement for adjustment under Rule 6(4B)(ii) due to delayed receipt of payment details, citing Centralized Registration under Rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules. However, the adjudicating authority found no evidence supporting the claim that the excess payment was due to delayed receipt of payment details.

3. The Revenue representative argued that intimation to the jurisdictional officer was mandatory for adjustments, referring to a Tribunal case. The appellant had not informed the jurisdictional officer about the adjustment, leading to a denial of the excess amount adjustment.

4. The presiding judge noted that the appellant, with Centralized Registration, should be given an opportunity to produce evidence supporting the delayed receipt claim before the adjudicating authority. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision considering the evidence in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for a proper opportunity for a hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay application was disposed of.