2017 (8) TMI 440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and therefore, same should be adjusted against the demand made - Held that: - The appellants have not given any evidence to link the said payment with the service tax leviable during 14/05/2003 to 28/05/2003. In the absence of any evidence to link the two together, it is not the possible to allow adjustment of the said amount against the duty leviable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.Arun Mehta, Advocate for appellant Shri.B Kumar Iyer, Supdt. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per : Raju 1. This appeal has been filed M/s.Punjab State Container & Warehousing Corporation Ltd. against confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the F .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hey have already paid the entire amount of duty and therefore, same should be adjusted against the demand made. The said arguments was made before the original adjudicating authority rejected the said argument incorrectly. 4. Learned AR pointed out that date of knowledge has no relevance in so far as the invocation of extended period of limitation is concerned. He pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (256) ELT 369 (Guj). Learned AR argued that there is no evidence that the appellants have paid the said amount of duty and therefore the question of adjustment does not arrive. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of limitation would be applicable." 6. In view of the aforesaid decision, it is apparent that the knowledge of Revenue after the evasion has taken place, is irrelevant for invocation of extended period of limitation. In view of the above, the appellant s argument on limitation fails. 7. As regards the arguments of the appellant that they have already paid the said amount it is seen that the Deputy Commissioner in the order-in-original has observed as follows: "As regards to payment of ₹ 4,49,196/- the assesse s argument is that they have paid the amount of ₹ 1,53,864/- against Cargo handling service and ₹ 1,16,163/- against storage and warehousing vide TR-6 challan dated 22/03/2004 and the balance amount of ₹ 1,79 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X