9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... None for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, The Department is aggrieved by the portion of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 25.10.2011 setting aside the demand of Rs. 1,07,206/- under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act and also ordered for adjustment of an amount of Rs. 2,73,952/- paid by the respondent during the period August 2003 to May 2005 against demand for su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easoning for both his decisions. With regard to dropping of amount of Rs. 1,06,578/- he has found that the assessee was not liable to pay service tax prior to 16.05.2005 and that Section 11D of the Act would not be applicable in the impugned case. The lower adjudicating authority has brought out the fact that Sub-section (1) of 11D will apply only to the person who is "liable to pay duty" and wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.05.2008, an amendment was passed in Section 11D by addition of Sub-section 1A to cover situations where amounts had been collected in excess of duty assessed or collection of any amount representing duty of excess in respect of goods which were wholly exempt or chargeable to nil rate of duty. However, Sub-section (4) of 11D provides for adjustment of such amount inter alia arising against any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
