9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal filed against order-in appeal No. OIA-PJ/12/VDR-II/2013-14 dated 10.04.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Vadodara. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacture of excisable goods and paid excess service tax of Rs. 54,82,938/- due to clerical error as no GTA service was received by them during the period June 2010. They have filed refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible to adjust excess amount of service tax paid against future liability. The conditions prescribed under 6 (4a) and (4b) are relevant to the circumstances prescribed under sub Rule (4) of the said Service Tax Rules, 1994. In support, he refers to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Central Excise Mysore vs Power-cell Battery India Ltd, 2010 (19) STR 400 (Tri. Bang.) which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994, I find the approach of the Revenue is incorrect inasmuch as this Tribunal has already analyzing the relevant rules held that under sub rule (3) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, there is no embargo in adjusting the excess service tax paid against future liability. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. Appeal is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
