9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1033 - AT - Service TaxAdjustment of excess service tax paid - Held that - the issue is no longer res integra and is decided in favor of the respondent in the case of Jubilant Organosys Ltd. 2014 (10) TMI 138 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the adjustments of service tax was allowed in terms of Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, under similar circumstances - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.266/2008 dated 3.12.2008 regarding adjustments of service tax. - Eligibility of the respondent to make adjustments under Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. - Conflicting views between the department and the Commissioner (A) regarding the adjustments. - Interpretation of judicial pronouncements supporting the allowance of service tax adjustments. - Application of settled legal principles to the current case. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore heard appeals filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.266/2008 dated 3.12.2008 concerning adjustments of service tax made by the respondent. The respondent, registered under telephone services, had adjusted excess service tax paid to the credit of the Central Government against their service tax liability for subsequent periods. The department contended that such adjustments were not permissible under Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, resulting in short-payment of service tax. The original authority upheld the demand, but the Commissioner (A) allowed the adjustments, leading to the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled in favor of the respondent by various decisions, including the case of Jubilant Organosys Ltd. The Tribunal cited several judicial pronouncements supporting the allowance of service tax adjustments, emphasizing that the issue was no longer res integra. Relying on the settled legal principles and previous judgments, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue and upheld the impugned order, deciding in favor of the respondent. The judgment was dictated in Open Court on 12/12/2017.
|
