2017 (8) TMI 1173 - AT - Service Tax

Suo-moto adjustment of excess amount of service tax paid - Adjustment of such excess amount was objected by the Department on the ground that the adjustment entry was made after 2 months and that no intimation to that effect was furnished before the Department within a period of 15 days from the date of such reversal - Rule 6 (4B) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 - Held that - On perusal of the said rules it reveals that there is no specific mention that the adjustment has to be done on monthly basis. Further, non-filing of intimation within 15 days time is a procedural lapse. With regard to belated filing of the intimation before the Department, the same is procedural lapse - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Adjustment of excess service tax, contravention of Rule 6 (4B) (iv) of Service Tax Rules 1994, procedural lapse in filing intimation within 15 days, availability of benefit to the appellant.

Analysis:

1. Adjustment of Excess Service Tax: The appellant had deposited an excess service tax of ?3,96,104 during March 2008, which was adjusted in subsequent months. The Department objected to this adjustment, citing a contravention of Rule 6 (4B) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules 1994, leading to a demand against the appellant.

2. Contravention of Rule 6 (4B) (iv): The appellant argued that under Rule 6 (4A) and Rule 6 (4B), the excess amount can be adjusted after 2 months from the date of payment. The non-filing of intimation within 15 days was considered a procedural lapse, and the appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision to support their stance.

3. Procedural Lapse and Benefit Availability: The Revenue contended that since the amount was not reversed as per the rules, the adjustment was impermissible, and the benefit was not available to the appellant. However, the Tribunal found that the adjustment made by the appellant, although belatedly intimated, did not specifically require monthly adjustments as per the rules.

4. Judgment: After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal concluded that the belated filing of intimation was a procedural lapse, as established in a previous Tribunal case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the belated filing of intimation regarding the adjustment of excess service tax did not invalidate the adjustment itself. The procedural lapse was not substantial enough to deny the appellant the benefit provided by the statute. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements while also recognizing the substantive rights of the parties involved in tax adjustments.