9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion. Held that: - intimation of such adjustment was with the Department and at the most it was only a procedural lapse and on account of procedural lapse excess payment made by the assessee cannot be retained by the Government and therefore the action of the Revenue was held to be not sustainable - Moreover the respondent-assessee is a PSU and there is no mala fide intention on the part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment as required by them under Rule 6(1A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 along with interest and penalties under Section 76 78 of the finance Act, 1994 were dropped vide the Order-in-original No.28/2014-15-ST dt. 31/13/2014 holding that there was duplication of payment of service tax for the period from 4/2010 to 8/2010 and the assessee has put forth logical and credible reasons for unintentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout the excess payment, adjustment was declared in their ST3 return and accordingly intimation of such adjustment was with the department; that at the most, it was a procedural lapse and merely for this procedural lapse, the excess amount paid cannot be retained by the government and therefore, invoking Section 73(1) for a non-existing short payment is not sustainable. 3. Heard both sides an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment about the excess payment but adjustment was declared in their ST3 returns and accordingly intimation of such adjustment was with the Department and at the most it was only a procedural lapse and on account of procedural lapse excess payment made by the assessee cannot be retained by the Government and therefore the action of the Revenue was held to be not sustainable. 6. I have gone throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
