9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y had paid excess service tax and the same is adjusted for subsequent period. The only irregularity raised is that they did not intimate before adjustment - The facts do not reveal any suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty - demand is time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20103/2014 - A/30112/17 - Dated:- 31-1-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other taxable services for the period October, 2008 to July 2009. The department entertained the view that such suo-moto adjustment of excess paid service tax is against the provisions of law. The appellant ought to have filed a refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence the demand for ₹ 3,35,257/-. 3. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imated to the department regarding the adjustment of excess paid service tax. That therefore, the demand is time barred. 5. Against this, the Ld. AR, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellants had suo-moto adjusted the excess paid service tax which is against the provisions of law and have not intimated to the department before such adjustment. That therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty. There is no evidence to establish that the appellants are guilty of fraud, willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. On this background the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Therefore, I hold that the demand is time barred. In view thereof, the impugned order regarding the demand of ₹ 3,35,257/- the interest thereon and penalty is set aside. The appeal is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
