9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2007 and January, 2008 respectively - the benefit of Rule 6(3) does not stand extended for the period April, 2007 onwards by referring to the provisions of Rule 6(4B)(iii) - Held that:- Going through the said Rule 6(4B)(iii) which lays down that in a case other than specified under clause (ii), the excess amount paid by adjustment with monetary limit of Rs. 50,000/- for a relevant month or quart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lasses falling under Chapter 78 of Central Excise Tariff Act. They are availing services of goods transport agency for receiving the inputs in the factory as also for clearing the final product from the factory. The appellant, as recipient of GTA services, are required to pay Service Tax. 2. The appellant deposited an excess amount of Service Tax of Rs. 1,11,902/- in the month of March, 2006, Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed the adjustment to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- for the said period and confirmed the demand of balance amount of Rs. 43,344/- and Rs. 59,266/- along with interest and imposition of penalties. The said order of original adjudicating authority was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 4. It is seen that as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) wherever the assessee has paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tary limit of Rs. 50,000/- for a relevant month or quarter, however, I find that Rule 6(3), under which relief stand granted to the appellant for the previous period, continues to remain on statute. The benefit of said provisions would be available to the appellant for adjustment of excess payments as even for the subsequent period all the conditions of said Rule 6(3) stand fully specified by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
