9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 15-8-97 19-11-97 96 7,599.42 Aug'97 184,553.00 15-9-97 18-9-97 3 276.83 149,341.00 15-9-97 19-11-97 65 4,800.25 Sept'97 372,195.00 15-10-97 23-10-97 8 1,488.78 Oct'97 482,816.00 15-11-97 19-11-97 4 934.48 Nov'97 447,951.00 15-12-97 18-12-97 3 671.93 Dec'97 559,177.00 15-1-98 21-1-98 6 1,623.42 Jan'98 576,372.00 15-2-98 21-2-98 6 1,673.34 Mar'98 1,054,413.00 15-4-98 184-98 3 1,530.60 TOTAL A 23,980.26 According to the department, if any part of the delay involved in the payment of service tax for a given calendar month is comprised in any calendar month subsequent thereto, the entire length of the latter month would be counted towards delay. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has argued that this circular is not reliable to the extent it is contradictory to Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this connection, he has sought to draw support from the Supreme Court's ruling in Kalyani Packaging Industry v. U.O.I 2004 (168) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), wherein it was held that a circular of the Board could not prevail over the law laid down by the Court. 3. Ld. SDR has also referred to the Board's circular dated 16-11-1998 relied on by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). She has made an endeavour to justify the impugned order on the strength of this circular. 4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find that the decision of the lower authorities is not in accordance with the mandate of law, Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged for the period of delay alone and not for the full month. The ratio of this decision should equally be applicable to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, it has to be held that the interest paid by the assessee for the actual period of delay is in order and nothing more requires to be paid by them to wards interest on the service tax amounts paid by them. 5. After a perusal of the circular referred to in the impugned order, I do not think that this circular purported to clarify the provisions relevant to this case. The circular was concerned with the expression "month" used in Section 75 ibid. It did not seek to explain or clarify the expression "part of a month" used in the said section. It is the latter expression which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
