9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re can be no allegation of suppression of material fact by the appellant. Suo moto adjustments between the excess paid service tax in certain months with the service tax payable in subsequent months - Held that:- There is no infirmity in the dropping of such demand in as much as the alleged violations of Rule 6(4)B are merely procedural infractions - this ground raised by the revenue is rejected. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The demand is to be restricted to the normal time limit - the adjudicating authority is directed to requantify the demand falling within the normal time limit and at the same time extend cum tax benefit. Penalty set aside by invoking section 80. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/98/2009 & ST/130/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SNL failed to pay service tax on due dates and accordingly were liable for payment of interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. iv) A few instances of short payment of service tax as well as suo moto adjustment of excess paid service tax of in subsequent months were noticed. These adjustments were made for amounts beyond the limit of ₹ 50,000/- specified in the Service Tax Rules, 1994 which was considered improper. 2. Show cause notice dated 01.10.2008 was issued proposing recovery of service tax on the above lines. After consideration of the reply filed by BSNL and grant of personal hearing, the impugned order was passed, in which the Adjudicating Authority upheld a part of the demand raised in the show cause notice. He a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch needs no interference. 5. None appeared on behalf of BSNL inspite of notice. Revenue represented by Shri A.K.Biswas, Suptd.(AR). 6. After hearing the ld.DR, it is seen that the main thrust of the argument advanced by the BSNL against the service tax demand confirmed against them is that the show cause notice is hit by time bar for a significant part of demand. In this regard we note that the demand raised in the show cause notice is a consequence of audit undertaken by the department of the books of accounts of BSNL. From the show cause notice we find that a bland allegation of willful suppression has been raised against BSNL. The department has not brought on record any single positive act on the part of BSNL for suppressing any m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B are merely procedural infractions. Hence, this ground raised by the revenue is rejected. 9. In respect of other demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority, BSNL has submitted that they will be entitled to cum tax benefit. We have already held above that the demand is to be restricted to the normal time limit. We direct the adjudicating authority to requantify the demand falling within the normal time limit and at the same time extend cum tax benefit. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find no justification to impose any penalty which is set aside by taking recourse to Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 11. In the result, the following order is passed: i) The appeal filed by the revenue is rejected. ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
