9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limitation - Appeal No. ST/109/2005 - Final Order No. 129/2006-ST(PB) - Dated:- 9-1-2006 - [Order] - Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal filed by the respondents in respect of the amount of Service tax adjustment under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 allowed on merits as well as on limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Service tax paid to DOT under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Rules, the adjustment is permissible if the assessee has paid to the credit of Central Govt. Service tax in respect of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms no service tax is payable in respect of the junction connectivity provided by the DOT. Therefore, the respondents have paid wrongly the Service tax, which was adjusted subsequently. The respondents submitted that in the return they had specifically mentioned that this adjustment in respect of the Service Tax on DOT inter-connectivity Bills. Therefore, no suppression can be alleged on the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. In view of the clear provisions of the rule, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby such adjustment was allowed is not sustainable and set aside. 8. In respect of limitation, we find that the demand raised in the show cause notice dated 16-10-2003 is in respect of the period April, 2002 to September, 2002 and the necessary return was filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
