9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view was reiterated by CBIC letter dated 22.04.2009. However, after the re-examination of all the relevant issues, the CBIC by letter dated 20.09.2011 clarified that the deposit insurance activity of DICGC falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under General Insurance Business - the appellants DICGC are required to pay service tax on the taxable service of deposit insurance with effect from 20.09.2011. Whether the insurance premium should be considered as cum-tax-value? - HELD THAT:- The matter is no more res integra in view of the various decisions taken by this Tribunal, which were also upheld by the Apex Court. In particular, it is found that Kolkata Bench of CESTAT in the case of COMMR OF C. EX CUS., PATNA VERSUS ADVANTAGE MEDIA CONSULTANT [ 2008 (3) TMI 59 - CESTAT KOLKATA] has held that Where the gross amount charged by a service provider, for the service provided or to be provided is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of such taxable service shall be such amount as with the addition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged. The plea advanced by the department on the issue of cum-tax-value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944 providing for recovery of sum due to the Government has not been made specifically applicable to service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the factual position that the show cause notice proceedings has not been concluded and thus there were no confirmed demands on the date of passing of the order by the concerned Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, even to consider under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, the first appellate authority cannot be found fault - The appellants DICGC may be given liberty to raise any issues before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai, when the matter is remanded for denovo adjudication. Further, while taking up the matter in denovo proceedings for redetermination of the interest payable for actual delay in payment of service tax, the appellants DICGC shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard in person and for submission of the relevant documents in support of their claim - the matter needs to be sent back to the first appellate authority, to determine the actual amounts of refunds of service tax payable to the appellants DICGC. Appeal disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee being aggrieved had preferred to file appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai. Further in respect of refund claims filed by the assessee which were rejected/ sanctioned and appropriated against certain demands, by the original authority, appeals were also preferred by the assessee. Revenue also filed two appeals before the said Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai claiming that insurance premium collected is not inclusive of service tax and for recovery of short payment of service tax. In respect of all such five appeals filed by the assessee and two appeals filed by the department, the said Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai had passed a common order vide Order-in-Appeal SK/128134/LTU/MUM/2015 dated 11.01.2016 (impugned order). As the issues in appeal are having reference to various orders in original passed by original authority and are covered under the common order in appeal, these details have been captured in brief as below, for better appreciation of the facts of the case. Table - 1 Issues in brief which were handled in impugned order, the common Order in Appeal passed No.SK/128-134/LTU/MUM/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014/P? (b) Whether the Department is right in the adjusting the refund amount under section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the demand of interest for delay in payment of service tax, even when show cause notice demanding such interest has not been adjudicated which is the issue in Appeal No. 17/2014/P & 18/2014/P filed by DICGC? (c) Whether the due date for payment of service tax for DICGC in the instant case is 6th May and 6th November of each year or 6th June or 6th December of each year, which is the issue in Appeal No. 17/2014/P & 18/2014/P filed by DICGC? (d) Whether interest to the extent of Rs.19,20,30,665/- was appropriated twice from refund amount sanctioned to DICGC, which is the issue in Appeal No. 77/2015/P? (e) Whether the Department was right in adjusting amount of interest against the refund amount during the pendency of appeal and stay application in CESTAT against the order confirming the interest, which is the issue in Appeal No. 77/2015/P filed by DICGC? (f) Whether the department was right in not rectifying the mistake apparent on record under section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that the matter is subjudiced, which is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /P filed by DICGC are not required to be looked into. ….. 9.1. I find from the copies of Order-in-Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-32/R/13-14 dated. 12.02.2014 and Order-in-Original-No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-33/R/13-14 dated 12.02.2014 submitted by DICGC that an amount of Rs.19,20,30,665/- sanctioned as refund was appropriated against interest of Rs.19,50,40,268/-………. However, in the foregoing paras while dealing with appeals filed by DICGC against these two Order in Originals dated 12.02.2014, I have held that this appropriation of refund sanctioned against unconfirmed demand of interest is not in conformity with the law and that Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked in Service Tax matters. Hence, it cannot be said that the interest amount of Rs.19,20,30,665/- have been appropriated twice. 9.2. Since this appropriation is also made under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paras, the said appropriation also cannot be sustained. ….. 9.4. Since I find merit in the contention of DICGC that the amount of interest confirmed cannot be appropriated during the penden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTU/MUM/ CX/DICGC/23/ 2008-Pt.II dt. 14.07.2015 issued by The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai being rendered as infructuous. (…..) Commissioner' APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL : 4.1. Being aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai, the assessee had filed the following appeals. The details of these appeals and the gist of the grounds claimed by the assessee are as follows: Appeal No. ST/85938/2016: The assessee claims that in the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai, had not given his findings about the quantum of interest payable by the assessee. It is further claimed by them that the point of taxation is the date of issuance of invoice or the date of receipt of payment, whichever is earlier. The assessee had received payments from the banks in April/October, and hence they claim that the point of taxation is May/ November. They had received the entire amount of premium for deposits held as on September 2011, in November 2011 and similarly in respect of premium for deposits held as on March 2012, the premium was received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is legal and proper? (b) Whether the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai, has erred in holding that the service tax liability required to be discharged by DICGC on the premium cannot be collected over and above the premium amount and that the premium amount collected has to be necessarily considered as inclusive of the service tax element? (c) Whether by an order passed under Section 86 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, the Hon'ble CESTAT should remand the case to Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I C. Ex and Service Tax, LTU, for reconsideration and to pass such order as deemed fit? (d) Whether the CESTAT should pass any order as may be appropriate? Appeal No. ST/86014/2016: The Department had filed another appeal against the impugned order on similar lines claiming that the first appellate authority has erroneously held that the gross amount of premium is to be treated as cum-tax, since DICGC doesn't have any unilateral authority to alter the rate of premium. Further, they claimed that to treat it as cum-tax value, it will reduce the premium and to this the assessee requires prior approval of RBI. Therefore, the department cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013, wherein the gross amount for the services rendered have been shown as received in May, 2012, the learned Chartered Accountant for the assessee claimed that the due dates for payment of service tax in their case is 6th December, 2011 and 6th June, 2012 respectively. Thus they pleaded that the interest for the delayed payment requires to be recalculated as claimed in their appeal. (iii) the Chartered Accountant for the assessee claimed that the provisions of section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, is squarely applicable in their case. Hence they claimed that the gross amount charged by DICGC is inclusive of service tax. In support of their stand, they relied upon the following judgements: Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited [2002 (141) EIT 3 (SC)] Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Patna Vs. Advantage Media Consultant [2008 (10) STR 449 (Tri-Kolkata)] Sri Chakra Tyres Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras [1999 (108) ELT 361 Tribunal] (iv) The learned Chartered Accountant for the assessee stated that the claim made by the department in their appeal, contrary to the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order that service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of service tax legislation; and whether such amount of interest is required to be redetermined, contrary to the conclusion arrived at in paragraph 8.5 of the impugned order. (iii) whether the findings made by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai in the impugned order, in respect of claims made by the appellants DICGC on appropriation of the refunds sanctioned twice, not rectifying the mistake apparent on record, and the claim of the department for computation of tax liability over and above the amount collected by DICGC as insurance premium, are required to be re-determined. 6.1. In order to appreciate the various issues that have arisen in this appeal, it would be pertinent to refer to the background to the dispute on the levy of service tax with respect to the services provided by DICGC in the past and the earlier order passed by this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. ST/86491/2013, ST/88305/2014 and ST/88324/2014 vide Order No. A/559-561/15/STB dated 11.03.2015. The relevant extract for better appreciation of the above case is below: "2.1. DICGC is a subsidiary of RBI established under the DICGC Act, 1961 for the purpose of providing insurance of deposits and g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending March 2013. They furnished the information on gross charges recovered up to 31/3/2011 on 13/10/2011 & 19/10/2011. 2.7. Show cause notice demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs.2075.65 Cr. invoking extended period of limitation was issued on 24/10/2011 for the period from 1/5/2006 to 31/3/2011 and demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs.283.15 Cr. was issued on 07/03/2012, for the period from 1/4/2011 to 30/9/2011 within normal time limit. Two more show cause notices were issued for recovery of interest for the belated payment of service tax and for imposition of penalties on 31/01/2013 and 25/06/2013. These notices were adjudicated as indicated in the opening paragraph and the demands confirmed and penalties imposed. Hence the appeals before us. …. 6. To conclude,- (1) We hold that the deposit insurance activity undertaken by the appellant, Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, falls within the taxable service category of "general insurance business service" as defined in section 65(49) read with section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is liable to service tax accordingly. (2) The appellant is liable to pay service tax on the said ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 stating that the said service is not taxable, which was withdrawn vide letter dated 20.09.2011. 6.5. Further, the said earlier order of this Tribunal also stated in clear terms that appellants DICGC are liable to pay interest therein, in case there is any delay in payment of service tax by the due date as prescribed in the service tax legislation. Thus we find that the appellants DICGC are required to pay service tax on the taxable service of deposit insurance with effect from 20.09.2011. Whether the insurance premium should be considered as cum-tax-value 7.1. On the issue of deposit insurance premium collected by the appellants DICGC, whether it should be considered as cum-tax value for the purpose of determination of service tax liability, we find that the matter is no more res integra in view of the various decisions taken by this Tribunal, which were also upheld by the Apex Court. In particular, we find that Kolkata Bench of CESTAT in the case of Commissioner v. Advantage Media Consultant as reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 449 (Tri. - Kolkata) has held as follows: "3. Service tax is an indirect tax. As per this system of taxation, tax borne by the consumer of goods/ serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xt of excise duty came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Appeal (Civil) 3783 of 2000 in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited [2002 (2) SCR 99 dated 27/02/2002] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided in the judgement dated 27.02.2002, as follows: Judgement: 2002 (2) SCR 99 The following Orders of the Court was delivered : The respondent is manufacturing motor vehicles and it had availed of MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. As it had not paid any excise duty on the raw material, it became liable to pay excise duty on the waste and scrap of aluminium and iron and steel which scrap had been sold by the respondent. "The Collector raised a demand of excise duty on the waste and scrap which was sold. The demand was challenged by the respondent who contended that excise duty was not payable. Having been unsuccessful before the Collector, an appeal was filed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order came to the conclusion that excise duty was payable on the scrap sold by the respondent. It further came to the conclusion that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate that after the sale transaction was completed, the purchaser was under no obligation to pay any extra amount to the seller, namely, the respondent. In such a transaction, it is the seller who takes on the obligation of paying all taxes on the goods sold and in such a case the said taxes on the goods sold are to be deducted under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) and this is precisely what has been directed by the Tribunal. There is also nothing to show that the sale price was not cum-duty. It will be useful here to refer to the observations of this Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1978] 4 SCC 271, at page 280, as follows: "Take for example, excise duty payable by a dealer who is a manufacturer. When he sells goods manufactured by him, he always passes on the excise duty to the purchaser. Ordinarily it is not shown as a separate item in the bill, but it is included in the price charged by him. The 'sale price' in such a case could be the entire price inclusive of excise duty because that would be the consideration payable by the purchaser for the sale of the goods. True, the excise duty component of the price would not be an addition to the coffers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2015 the following decision has been taken. "5. The Committee considered Executive Director's Memorandum dated July 16, 2015 on 'Need for Specific approval of Reserve Bank of India for treatment of premium inclusive of Service Tax for the period October, 2011 to March, 2013 - Additional Service Tax liability on DICGC' and passed the following resolution: RESOVLED that it was noted that the gross amount charged by DICGC to the insured banks during the period October 01, 2011 to March 31, 2013 was inclusive of service tax payable and as such gross amount was in accordance with the approval given by RBI under Section 15 (1) of the DICGC Act, no further approval was necessary. The submission that the value of taxable service has been calculated by DICGC in accordance with the method indicated by Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 was also noted". 7.5. A conjoint perusal of the records, facts of the case with above judicial pronouncements, would lead us to the conclusion that appellants DICGC are eligible for the cum tax benefit. In view of this, we do not find any grounds for interfering with the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such other rate of interest, as it may deem necessary: Provided further that in the case of a service provider, whose value of taxable services provided in a financial year does not exceed sixty lakh rupees during any of the financial years covered by the notice or during the last preceding financial year, as the case may be, such rate of interest, shall be reduced by three per cent. per annum. Extract of Service Tax Rules, 1994: 6. Payment of service tax (1) The service tax shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government,- (i) by the 6th day of the month, if the duty is deposited electronically through internet banking; and (ii) by the 5th day of the month, in any other case, immediately following the calendar monthin which the service is deemed to be provided as per the rules framed in this regard: Provided that where the assessee is a one person company whose aggregate value of taxable services provided from one or more premises is fifty lakh rupees or less in the previous financial year, or is an individual or proprietary firm or partnership firm or Hindu Undivided Family, the service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the advance payment made, and its adjustment, if any in the subsequent return to be filed under section 70 of the Act. (2) Every assessee shall electronically pay the service tax payable by him, through internet banking: Provided that the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow the assessee to deposit the service tax by any mode other than internet banking. (2A) For the purpose of this rule, if the assessee deposits the service tax by cheque, the date of presentation of cheque to the bank designated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs for this purpose shall be deemed to be the date on whichservice tax has been paid subject to realization of that cheque. (3) Where an assessee has issued an invoice, or received any payment, against a service to be provided which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, or where the amount of invoice is renegotiated due to deficient provision of service, or any terms contained in a contract, the assessee may take the credit of such excess service tax paid by him, if the assessee.- (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt paid by him against his service tax liability within one year from the date of payment of such property tax and the details of such adjustment shall be intimated to the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the service provider within a period of fifteen days from the date of such adjustment. (5)Where an assessee under sub-rule (4) requests for a provisional assessment he shall file a statement giving details of the difference between the service tax deposited and the servicetax liable to be paid for each month in a memorandum in Form ST-3A accompanying the quarterly or half yearly return, as the case may be…… Extract of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011: 3.Determination of point of taxation.- For the purposes of these rules, unless otherwise provided, 'point of taxation' shall be,- (a) the time when the invoice for the service provided or agreed to be provided is issued: Provided that where the invoice is not issued within the time period specified in rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the point of taxation shall be the date of completion of provision of the service. (b) in a case, where the person providing the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e., appellants DICGC and the department, on the issue that the due date for payment of service tax in this case, is the 6th day of the month, immediately following the calendar month in which the deposit insurance premium was received. However, we notice that the appellants have claimed that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai who decided in his impugned order at para 8.5, that "the issue of arithmetical correctness of the calculation of interest consequent to determination of the due date for payment of Service Tax for DICGC, which are issues raised in Appeal No.17/2014/P and 18/2014/P filed by DICGC are not required to be looked into." require redetermination as this has arisen from an error in the show cause notice proceedings which have not been addressed in the impugned order. In specific terms, the appellants have stated that error has been caused in the show cause notice dated 31.01.2013 and 25.06.2013 which demanded interest on delayed payment of duty. For the demand of interest during the disputed period October, 2011 to March, 2012, it is claimed by the appellants DICGC that the show cause notice had wrongly captured the due date for payment of ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No Particulars Interest in Rs. as per calculation made by Department Appellants 1 Gross amount received against services provided during April, 2012 to June, 2012 2793,16,30,170 2793,16,30,170 2 Service Tax payable including Cess 345,23,49,488 345,23,49,488 3 Service Tax actually paid by appellants 343,00,00,000 343,00,00,000 4 Excess payment made 2,23,49,488 2,23,49,488 5 Interest calculation @18% for 110 days (06.05.2012 to 23.08.2012) May - 2012- 26days June, 2012-- 30 days July, 2012 -- 31 days August, 2012 -- 23 days Total --110 days 12,12,383 - 6 Interest calculation @18% for 79 days (06.06.2012 to 23.08.2012) June, 2012 -- 25 days July, 2012 -- 31 days August, 2012 -- 23 days Total --79 days - 8,70,712 8.4. On the above issue, we find that the facts of the case have been shown with respect to the ST-3 returns filed by the appellants DICGC and hence there exist reasonable ground for accepting the arguments advanced by the appellants DICGC. However, we donot have any other records such as invoice, receipts, online transactions summary, statement of accounts of the appellants DICGC for establishing the dates on which the payments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax paid, had adjusted the same against the interest on service tax on the ground that these are outstanding arrears for an amount of Rs.18,93,80,153/- and Rs.26,50,512/-. Further vide order dated 01.08.2014 the original authority had also appropriated and adjusted an amount of Rs.19,29,66,692/- against outstanding arrears of interest. We find that the in another Order-in-Original No.01-02/COMMR (WLH)/LTU/M/CX/2014 decided by the Commissioner of Central Excise& Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai on 11.04.2014, wherein the interest for the period 06.11.2011 to 30.03.2012 for an amount of Rs.19,17,54,309/- and for the period 06.05.2012 to 23.08.2012 for an amount of Rs.12,12,383/- was confirmed and ordered to be recovered; precisely against this order the appellants DICGC had filed an appeal before this Tribunal along with stay application, which was then decided on 11.03.2015. 9.2. Accordingly, we find that the conclusion arrived by the first appellate authority in his impugned order that during the pendency of stay applications before this Tribunal, no coercive action can be taken by the department is correct in principle. However, the factual detail in respect of the case whether it was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im in his order at para 11(a) to 11(d): (a) "I reject the appeals filed by the Department against Order-in-Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-32/R/1314 dt. 12.02.2014 and Order-in-Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-33/R/13-14 dt. 12.02.2014. (b) The appeals filed by DICGC against Order-in-Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-32/R/13-14 dt. 12.02.2014 and Order-in-Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-33/R/1314 dt. 12.02.2014 are allowed and the said orders to the extent it appropriates Rs.26,50,512/- and Rs.18,93,80,153/- towards unconfirmed interest liability are set aside. The amount of refund sanctioned to DICGC in these two Order in Originals shall be paid to them forthwith. (c) I allow the appeal of DICGC filed against Order- in- Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-18/R/2014 dated 01.08.2014 to the extent it appropriates an amount of Rs.19,29,66,692/- is set aside. The amount of refund sanctioned to DICGC in this Order in Original shall be paid to them forthwith. (d) I allow the appeal of DICGC filed against Order- in- Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-12/R/2014 dated 08.07.2014. The amount of Rs.10,99,93,595/- sought as refund shall be paid to them forthwith". However, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... answer the logical question and the eagerness of the department in the appeal praying for re-computation of the service tax afresh, we go back to the clarification issued by the department in its letter F. No. 137/135/2008-CX-4 dated 20.09.2011 on the applicability of service tax on the activities carried out by the appellants DICGC. The said letter of CBIC clearly provides in para 8 & 9 as follows: "8. In view of the above discussion it is clarified that the insurance activity of DICGC falls within the ambit of Section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, (FA,1994) and is chargeable to service tax. 9. This clarification may be given wide publicity." 10.3. We find that this letter was issued by the Director (Service Tax) of CBIC, addressed to the Chief Commissioner, Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai. Though this letter takes into account the background of the issue, earlier clarifications offered from the Ministry of Finance, review and modifications for coming to the conclusion that was clarified, it did not specifically provide the same in the form of an order or instructions or directions of CBIC in exercise of the powers vested in Section 37B of Central Excise Act, 1944 made applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax as per section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, where if it is satisfied that a practice was, or is, generally prevalent regarding levy of service tax, including non-levy thereof, on any taxable services; and that such taxable services were, or are, liable to service tax, in cases where according to the said practice the service tax was not, or is not being levied, then the Central Government may direct that the whole of the service tax shall not be required to be paid, in respect of such taxable services. Thus we find that the above legal provisions clearly provide for handling the non levy or for not charging service tax for the past period prior to 20.09.2011, in a specific manner as discussed above. We also find that CBIC had issued such notifications in above described scenario. An example of such notification issued by Government is the Notification No. 19/2015 Service Tax dated 14.10.2015, wherein non-levy of service tax on the services provided by an Indian Bank or other entity acting as an agent to the Money Transfer Service Operators (MTSO), in relation to remittance of foreign currency from outside India to India, for the period from 01.07.2012 to 13.10.2014, a sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails submitted or to be submitted by the appellants DICGC and any other record necessary for the purpose of such re-determination; and also give reasonable opportunity for personal hearing of the appellants DICGC. 11.3. We also uphold the order of the first appellate authority i.e., the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), C. Excise and Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai-I on the basis of the findings that the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 providing for recovery of sum due to the Government has not been made specifically applicable to service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the fact that the show cause notice proceedings were not concluded and thus there were no confirmed demands as on the date of passing the orders-in-original by the concerned Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, to consider these amount of refunds sanctioned to appellants DICGC to be adjusted as arrears for recovery under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, we deem it necessary to send back this issue for redetermination of actual amount of refunds payable to the appellants DICGC which are in excess of the service tax that is required to be paid as per law, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
