9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 11B in the facts of the present case the Clause (f) is applicable according to which the date of payment is the relevant date, therefore, the date of payment being 03.06.2017 and refund filing dated 01.06.2018, the appellant s refund claim is well within 1 year from the date of excess payment of Service Tax. Accordingly, the refund is not time barred. Refund amount of Rs. 11,804/- - rejection on the ground that the appellant have not submitted the documents - HELD THAT:- It is crystal clear that the appellant as against the actual income of Rs. 1976933.51 for the month of May, 2017 in ST-3 return wrong amount of Rs. 20,55,619/- was oversightly mentioned. Due to this reason on this wrong amount the Service Tax was paid, henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght refund. As regard Rs. 11,804/- excess payment of service tax was made it is due to the reason that as compared to the total income for the month of May, 2017 oversightly, the excess amount of taxable value was mentioned in ST-3 return, accordingly the excess payment of Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 11,804/- was made. For this amount also the appellant filed the refund claim. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim for Rs. 92320/- on the ground that this excess paid Service Tax could have been adjusted against the subsequent liability in terms of Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rule 1994. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) though ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese documents are sufficient to establish the correct amount of taxable value, therefore, the contention of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the documents were not produced is not correct. 3. Shri. Rajesh K Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. As regard, the refund amount of Rs. 92,321/- I find the undisputed fact is that though this tax pertains to the period month ending 31 March, 2017 but the appellant have paid the excess Service Tax on 03.06.2017. The refund claim for the same was filed on 01.06.2018. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 11,804/- the Learned Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant have not submitted the documents. Learned counsel has taken me to the documents such as ST-3 returns, income statement of the relevant period, ledgers of the service recipient in their books of account, C.A Certificate and affidavit of the director of the appellant s Company. On going there all these documents it is crystal clear that the appellant as against the actual income of Rs. 1976933.51 for the month of May, 2017 in ST-3 return wrong amount of Rs. 20,55,619/- was oversightly mentioned. Due to this reason on this wrong amount the Service Tax was paid, hence, there is excess payment of Service Tax. With the documents submitted by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
