9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- there is no dispute about the fact that appellants have paid excess service tax amount of ₹ 2,49,858/- in May 2010. The dispute revolves around the procedure they have followed in adjusting the said excess amount against the future service tax liabilities in June, July and August 2010 suo-moto. We find force in the arguments of the learned Senior Adviser of the appellants that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr. P.M. Saleem The appellants herein M/s. L T Sargent Lundy Limited had made excess payment of service tax of ₹ 2,49,858/- in May 2010 and subsequently adjusted the said excess amount paid towards payment of service tax during the months of June, July and August, 2010. However, the appellants had not intimated the said adjustment to the department and have suo-moto adjusted the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any ineligible amount. It is not in dispute that they have paid the excess service tax amount of ₹ 2,49,858/- and the same is eligible to be adjusted towards the future service tax liabilities. It is his contention that though they had to intimate the department for such adjustments under the provisions of Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B), there was no such requirement under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78 is warranted. 4. On careful consideration of the arguments of both sides and perusal of the records, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that appellants have paid excess service tax amount of ₹ 2,49,858/- in May 2010. The dispute revolves around the procedure they have followed in adjusting the said excess amount against the future service tax liabilities in June, July and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax liability of ₹ 2,49,858/- during the months of June, July and August, 2010. We therefore direct the lower authorities to regularise the matter accordingly. The penalty of ₹ 2,49,858/- imposed under Section 78 is liable to be set-aside. We hold so. The demand of service tax of ₹ 2,49,858/- and interest, and equivalent penalty under Section 78 are set-aside. The penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
