Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (8) TMI 1224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... artment raised the objection that the same Cannot be and therefore the Department is asking for the interest for the period until it becomes proper payment by way of sanction of refunds. The Department should have considered the practical difficulties on account of which the appellant has devised the system of paying in advance and subsequently adjusting the excess payment and we do not find any infirmity in the procedure followed by the appellant and the Department has also not raised objection from the very beginning. The impugned order demanding interest is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/585 – 589/2008 - Final Order No. 21057-21061/2018 - Dated:- 31-7-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... months. This type of suo motto adjustment by the appellant for excess payment was objected by audit team of Central Excise Department in the month of July 2006. After continuous meetings with the departmental officers, the appellants filed the refund claim of the excess paid amount and the same was sanctioned by the Orders-in-Original, but demanded and recovered interest from the month of adjustment of excess paid amount till the date of sanction of the refund order. This is because suo motto adjustments is eligible only for centralized licencees of service tax and so the suo motto adjustment made by the appellants for the payment of service tax for a particular month becomes non-payment and it becomes regular payment only on the day of sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ounsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dismissing the 5 appeals is not sustainable as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the peculiar facts in the present case. He further submitted that the appellant is a PSU with 100% Central Government ownership. It provides services from multiple locations scattered in the Telecom District but accounting and billing of such services is done centrally at the registered location. He further submitted that suo motto adjustment made by the appellant was brought to the notice of the Department every time during the said month only and no objection was raised by the appellant until the audit objection. He further submitted that the figures has to be collected from multi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... month on or before 5 th of the following month by making a provisional calculation and in the event of any shortage it makes the balance of payment by 25 th of the following month along with the interest and if such payments are in excess, then it is adjusted towards the payment of subsequent month. This kind of an adjustment was within the knowledge of the Department as the appellant has been doing such adjustment every month and no objection was raised by the Department until the audit objection. Further we find that in the present case, it was the excess payment which was made and the same was adjustment during the subsequent months but the Department raised the objection that the same Cannot be and therefore the Department is asking .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 12-5-1998 shall not debar the Public Sector to get the benefit of Rule 6(4A) once that is read as having retrospective application. 8. We also find that the Department should have considered the practical difficulties on account of which the appellant has devised the system of paying in advance and subsequently adjusting the excess payment and we do not find any infirmity in the procedure followed by the appellant and the Department has also not raised objection from the very beginning. In view of this, we are of the view that the impugned order demanding interest is not sustainable in law and therefore we set aside the same by allowing all the appeals of the appellant. (Order was pronounced in Open Court on 31/07/2018) - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates