9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], has considered this aspect and after considering the rival contentions and the relevant provisions of law, has held Even though the duty payable under the Act is to be calculated under each head of each case ultimately it is the total duty payable for all the goods which are the subject matter of the provisional assessment and final assessment which is to be taken into consideration. The appellant is correct in its assertion that there was no shortfall and no interest liability since the shortfall of ₹ 47,44,656/- was for 2006-07 - service tax paid subsequently/belatedly attracts interest, which is for the year 2006-07 alone - there was no interest liability for March, 2006 i.e., for 2005-06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... table below : 2007-08 March 2008 Rs.59,36,12,385/- 2006-07 March 2007 Rs.70,84,07,089/- 2005-06 March 2006 Rs.71,54,94,987 2.2 The status of the liability of service tax on premium received in advance for the above three years as furnished by the assessee is given below : A. 2005-06: (i) The tax liability of ₹ 7,29,80,489/- on account of premium in advance during March, 2006, is taken care of by the excess remittances up to the month of March, 2006 which was ₹ 14,21,58,485/- (ii) The balance of the excess remittance is available for adjustment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.63,11,53,857/- 2005-06 March 2006 Rs.64,92,69,499/- 2.4 By this communication, the appellant had clearly stated that apart from the availability of excess remittances to cover the tax on premium in advance, they also had the balance of unutilized input in their account which are as follows : 2006-07 Rs.13,32,92,797/- (Rs.1,54,50,646/- which is 20% of the output tax, is available) 2007-08 Rs.36,17,33,414/- is available The appellant thus pleaded that even if the liability of service tax on the premium received in advance was to be remitted in the month of March, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit to cover the tax liability on premium in advance for the respective periods, etc. With regard to the demand of interest however, the assessee offered a fresh working, arrived at the interest liability of ₹ 17,88,570/- which was paid by them under protest. 3. The adjudicating authority thereafter accepted the above payment of interest by the assessee vide communication dated 05.11.2009. The appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the demand and recovery of interest on the belated payment and the first appellate authority after observing that the appellant had not disclosed the receipt of the amounts on Bills issued in the month of March 2006 and March 2007, has upheld the interest liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest on the shortfall. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied on by the Ld. Advocate, has considered this aspect and after considering the rival contentions and the relevant provisions of law, has held as under : 9. In the instant case, admittedly for certain items the Adjudicating Authority has held the short fall in payment of duty after the final assessment order as ₹ 10,63,417/-. In respect of other items, the assessee has paid ₹ 1,77,20,157/- in excess. But before imposing interest, the authority should have deducted the short fall in the excess payment made. If there is no short fall in payment of duty, payment of interest does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the delay and the calculation of interest of ₹ 19,53,680/- (for both periods) by the Revenue. This working is after admission by the assessee of the shortfall of ₹ 47,44,656/- for March, 2007. 7.3 From the above discussions, we find that appellant is correct in its assertion that there was no shortfall and no interest liability since the shortfall of ₹ 47,44,656/- was for 2006-07. Hence, we agree with the finding of first appellate authority that service tax paid subsequently/belatedly attracts interest, which is for the year 2006-07 alone. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there was no interest liability for March, 2006 i.e., for 2005-06. 8. The appeal is therefore partly allowed on the above terms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
