9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the other two heads of ₹ 38,57,094/- and ₹ 3,96,954/- there was no ground to oppose such demands. This reply to the show-cause notice is quite elaborate which is perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and thereby come to this conclusion. The Deputy Commissioner Service Tax could not have on his own interpreted the judgment of the Tribunal as being limited to striking down the demand of ₹ 12,62,95,889/-. Learned counsel for the revenue however vehemently contended that when there was no opposition to other demands in the reply filed to the show-cause notice and when the appeal of the assessee was also confined only to the tax demand of ₹ 12,62,95,889/-, the judgment of the Tribunal must be seen in light of such facts. He may be right in pointing out that the assessee had not filed any grounds opposing these demands in the reply to the show-cause notice and the prayer in the appeal memo is also limited to challenging the principal demand of ₹ 12,62,95,889/-. However it is not open for the subordinate authority to interpret the judgment of the superior Tribunal and bestow unto himself the powers to adjust the pre-deposit amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 67, 68 and 69 of the Finance Act, read with Rule 4 and 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The petitioner opposed the show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority passed the order in original on 06.08.2015, operative portion of which reads as under:- (i) I confirm under section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 service tax demand of ₹ 12,62,95,889/- (Rs. Twelve Crore Sixty Two Lacs Ninety Five Thousands Eight Hundred and Eighty Nine Only) + ₹ 38,57,094/- (Rs. Thirty Eight Lacs Fifty Seven Thousands and Ninety Four only) + ₹ 3,96,954/- (Rs. Three Lacs Ninety Six Thousands Nine Hundred Fifty Four Only) including Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess and order it to be recovered from M/s Executive Engineer (E), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 1st Floor, new Admn, Building, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur (Raj.) alongwith interest in terms of section 75 of the said Act. (ii) I confirm the demand of interest of ₹ 1,79,568/- (Rs. One Lacs Seventy Nine Thousands Five Hundred and Sixty Eight only) under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of service tax late paid by M/s Executive Engineer (E), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 1st Floor, New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the petitioner applied for refund of a sum of ₹ 98,04,713/- deposited by way of pre-deposit to file appeal before the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show-cause notice and proposed to adjust the refund against pending recovery of the Government confirmed vide order in original dated 06.08.2015 amounting to ₹ 1,20,87,217/-. He passed the final order thereon on 31.01.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under:- In view of above, I find that the refund of pre-deposit of ₹ 98,04,713/- is payable to the assessee. However I adjust confirm demand of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 42,54,048/- and Penalty amounting to ₹ 42,54,048/- and interest of ₹ 12,96,617/- of OIO dated 07.08.2015 from the pre-deposit amount of ₹ 98,04,713/-. However an interest amounting to ₹ 22,82,504/- of OIO dated 07.08.2015 remains recoverable despite adjusting the entire pre-deposit amount of ₹ 98,04,713/- In view of above, I pass the following order:- ORDER I hereby sanction refund amounting to ₹ 98,04,713/- (Rupees ninety eight lakhs four thousand seven hundred and thirteen only) to M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Trunk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith respect to the other two heads of ₹ 38,57,094/- and ₹ 3,96,954/- there was no ground to oppose such demands. This reply to the show-cause notice is quite elaborate which we have perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and thereby come to this conclusion. In the appeal memo against the order of adjudication, averments have been made opposing both these recoveries in specific terms. However in the grounds in such appeal memo no specific grounds are included. All grounds only concern the opposition to the confirmation of demand of ₹ 12,62,95,889/- The prayer clause in the appeal memo is also specific and reads as under:- set aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner wrongly ordering for recovery Service Tax demand of ₹ 126295889/- along with interest of ₹ 179568, together with penalty of ₹ 126295889/- and ₹ 10,000/-; and Despite such facts, the Tribunal by the judgment dated 11.09.2018 has set aside the entire order in original and thus allowed the appeal as can be seen from the portion of this judgment reproduced hereinabove. In view of such facts, in our opinion the Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
