9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as advance payment towards the liability of the subsequent month/quarter which is allowed regularly by the Department on an intimation being filed by the assesse. Since much time has elapsed and this option is not now available to the appellant assesse, the only option left is to refund the excess amount lying with the Department - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to grant refund of the excess amount of ₹ 1,54,540/- lying with the Department by virtue of double payment by the appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No: ST/70333/13 - FINAL ORDER NO.FO/A/76108/16 - Dated:- 27-9-2016 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sri Umapati Nandi, Chief Accountant, FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri J. Bose, A.C. (A.R.), FOR THE RESPONDENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant ), providing of services in the category of Business Auxiliary Service (hereinafter referred to as the said Service ), had filed a refund claim on 29 th December, 2009, to the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax, Division-III, for an amount of ₹ 1,54,540/- , which was paid in double erroneously, under the provisions of Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) read with the provisions under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended). (ii) On examination of the documents it has been observed that, the said claimant rendered service in the category of Business Auxiliary Service to their clients in connection with the Sales Promotion for the month of September, 2009 and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not been followed. As a result of which, it can not be held beyond doubt, as if the payment of service tax for the month of September, 2009, was delayed and was paid Late, on the same date along with the payment of service tax for the month of October, 2009. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim holding that since the matter has not been clarified as to how the excess payment occurred, the claim is not admissible. On appeal, the lower appellate authority upheld the Order-in-Original and disallowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Mr. Umapati Nandi, Chief Accountant of the appellant company appeared and explained the entire matter and filed photo copies of both the challans ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
