9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k of Hyderabad Industrial Finance Branch(SHB-IFB) are holder of service tax registration under the category Banking and other Financial Services SHB-IFB paid excess amount of Rs. 22,75,932/- during the month October, 2007, June, 2008, September, 2008. It is the case of the department that subsequently they adjusted the entire amount in the month of April, 2008, July, 2008, and October, 2008 without adhering to provisions of Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The department entertained the view that as the respondents adjusted the excess amount suo-motto, without intimating department and in violation of above said Rules, the respondents have short paid service tax to that extent. As per the rule, the respondent was entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the failure to intimate the department is only a technical breach. 4. Per Contra, the learned consultant Ms. Lalitha Rameswaran appearing for the respondent supported the findings in the impugned order and adverted to the relevant provisions of law. She submitted that the adjudicating authority had wrongly applied Rule 6(4A) and (4B). That as per Rule 6(1A), the respondents were entitled to make adjustment of the amount excess paid. There was an omission to intimate the department about such adjustment. However, such adjustment was clearly shown in their ST-3 Returns in Column 4A(i) (a)(ii). The failure to intimate was only a technical breach which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly condoned. She pleaded that the appeal may be dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under: "The sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 is with regard to adjustment of service tax paid in advance and the same has come into effect from 01-03-2008, as such the contention of the appellant that they are eligible for adjustment of excess payment under Rule 6(1A) is not applicable for the period April,, 2008 to September, 2008 as there is no mention of payments made under Rule 6 (1A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and the sub-rule (1A) is applicable for the period October, 2008 to March,2009 as the appellants have made payments under that sub rule. Without prejudice to the above, I am of the view that the appellants can adjust the excess payment of service tax as per Rule 6(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
