9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. cannot be established and the demand invoking extended period is not sustainable as the same is hit by limitation of time - Decided against the revenue. - ST/1757/2012 - Final Order No. A/30510/2016 - Dated:- 14-6-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S, Member (Judicial) Shri S. Reddy, AR for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by revenue challenging t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94. The lower authority vide the impugned order confirmed the demand of ₹ 13,41,790/- (after adjustment of ₹ 3,00,000/- for the months from January, 09 to March. 2009 against excess amount paid of ₹ 16,41,790/- as per the provisions of (iii) of sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994) under the provisions of Section 73(2) of Finance Act, 1994 73(1) of Finance Act 1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere. The allegation that the appellants had not intimated the fact of adjustment of excess payment of service tax do not have much force when the appellants have already disclosed the details of adjustment in the half yearly ST-3 returns filed with the department and all the facts were known to the department and it was widely opened for initiating any action as deemed fit. The information with re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
