2012 (6) TMI 581 - AT - Service Tax

Adjustment of excess service tax paid for the discharge of service tax liability for the subsequent period Held that - Considering submission that the appellants had wrongly mentioned the provisions of Rule 6 (4A) but in fact the provisions of Rule 6(3) will be applicable in this case no point to deny the adjustment to be made in COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MYSORE Versus POWERCELL BATTERY INDIA LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 357 (Tri) it was decided that where an assessee has paid to the credit of Central Government service tax in respect of a taxable service the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him (calculated on a pro rata basis) against his service tax liability for the subsequent period in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Adjustment of excess service tax paid without centralized registration under Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
The appellant paid excess Service Tax in certain months against their liability and adjusted it in subsequent periods under Rule 6(4A). A Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of short paid amount, interest, and penalty. The Lower Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appellant appealed against this decision.

2. Adjudication by Lower Authority:
The Lower Authority held that the appellant, without centralized billing registration, was not eligible for the adjustment under Rule 6(4A). They confirmed the demand, interest, and imposed penalties for late payment. The appellant's explanation was deemed insufficient.

3. First Appellate Authority's Decision:
The first appellate authority upheld the Lower Authority's decision, leading to the appellant's further appeal.

4. Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant argued that they had indeed paid excess service tax, which was adjusted under Rule 6(4A). They cited cases supporting their position and claimed that Rule 6(3) applied instead. They contended that the law favored the assessee in similar cases.

5. Respondent's Position:
The respondent argued that the appellant was ineligible for adjustment due to lack of central excise registration and non-compliance with Rule 6 conditions.

6. Judgment and Analysis:
The issue revolved around the adjustment of excess service tax paid without centralized registration. The appellant's explanation for excess payment was accepted, citing an impression of centralized registration. The lower authorities' technical views were deemed erroneous. Previous judgments supported the appellant's position, allowing for the adjustment of excess payments against subsequent liabilities. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant's position regarding the adjustment of excess service tax paid without centralized registration, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents in support of the decision.