9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was observed that they had not deposited Service Tax amounting to Rs. 2,47,87,659/- for the period from October, 2002 to March, 2003 and Rs. 3,06,34,134/- for the period from April, 2003 to September, 2003 in the prescribed TR-6 Challans in the designated Bank i.e. Punjab National Bank. Instead, the Noticee had paid the tax to DOT Cell through cheques and the DOT Cell deposited the cheques in the Treasury branch, Chandigarh of the State Bank of India under their own Challans. The Revenue felt that the appellants were required to deposit Service Tax in the prescribed TR-6 Challans in the designated bank i.e. Punjab National Bank. A show cause notice was therefore issued for contravention of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 6(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the statutory provisions as well as instructions issued by the Board for a period of more than three years. During the material period, the Noticee have made payment of Service Tax to DOT Cell through cheques and not to the Central Excise Department as per provisions laid down in the law. Thus, the payment made by the Noticee to the DOT Cell tantamount to nonpayment of service Tax. Accordingly, I find no force in the Noticee s submission that they have paid Service Tax and Service Tax cannot be demanded again. Thus, it is established that the Noticee has not paid Service Tax and they deliberately contravened the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Rules and Board s Circular No. 33/01/2001 dt. 29.01.2001" We find that ld. Commissioner himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of service tax, that can be demanded and collected as per provisions in the law. But order holding that amount already paid is no payment at all and therefore, such payment has to be made for a second time, is not a reasonable order. Revenue is not showing any interest in verifying whether the amount due has in fact been received or not, but only harping on the irregular method of payment. We also note Office Memorandum dated 3-2-2003 issued by C.B.E. & C. and relied upon by Revenue while filing the appeal directs as "cases of non-compliance may be intimated to this office". So if there is non-compliance by BSNL, the proper course was to intimate C.B.E. & C. and not to demand the tax again with interest and to impose penalties. The Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
