9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be adjusted against the correct registration for which the service tax is actually due. Accordingly, in the light of the above circular, the department could have made the necessary adjustment instead of raising the demand on the appellant. In the case of AURO PUMPS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2017 (7) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ], the duty is said to have been paid under incorrect assessee code i.e. Code no. 001 instead of Code No. 002. The Hon ble High Court held that when authorities stand became very clear no demand of duty or any sum payable from the petitioners so far as assessee code No. 001 is concerned and when the authority has also knowledge that there was a mistaken payment made under challan, which contained incorrect code i.e. Code no. 001, though it belonged to present assessee, who also has Code No. 002 also and two unequivocally intended to make payment demand, which was payable to him and which was paid, though mistakenly under wrong code i.e. Code no. 001, could not have been subjected to technical defect on the part of authority, so as to saddle with liability. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed. In view of the above cited d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioning of wrong service tax registration no. AABCT1389BST002 in the payment challan for two months i.e. January, 2008 and June 2007. (ii) Mentioning of wrong location code [i.e. Kolkata Commissionerate code (SB0302) instead of Haldia Commissionerate Code (700602)] in the payment challan from May, 2007 to February, 2008. 3. They contended that Service Tax liability on GTA service arising in Haldia Commissionerate (AABCT1389BST001) but inadvertently paid in Kolkata Commissionerate (AABCT1389BST002) can be adjusted as per Trade Notice No. 03/2014-S.T dated 10th July, 2014 issued by Cochin Central Excise Commissionerate and the Appellant cannot be asked to pay service tax again. The Trade Notice recognizes that mistake may happen in remittance of service tax against wrong accounting heads or incorrect registration numbers and has clarified that such matters should be sorted out with the P.A.O. and the assesse should not be asked to pay Service Tax again. 4. The relevant portion of Trade Notice is reproduced below: Sub: Ratification of remittances made against wrong accounting code and or wrong STC Code / C.Ex. Registration Number Procedure Regarding. There has been nu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a difference service tax registration of same assesse is a matter of internal adjustment at department s end and the assesse cannot be saddled with demand of service tax again. 6. The Appellant further stated that Service Tax paid under different registration but by the same company cannot tantamount to non-payment of service tax and no demand can be raised in respect of the same. 7. In this regard, they placed their reliance on the following decisions. 7.1 Welspun Corp Ltd., Vs. C.C.E. S. T.O Rajkot-2023(2) TMI 780- CESTAT, Ahmedabad. In this cae, the Tribunal Ahmedabad was dealing with service tax liability which was wrongly paid in service tax registration of Head office instead of ST registration of manufacturing unit. The Tribunal relied on Trade Notice No. 03/2014-S.T. dated 10 July 2014 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Cochin Commissionerate read with Circular No. 58/7/2003(F. No.157/2/2003 Cx. A) dated 20/05/2003 and held that the service tax paid under different registration but by the same company cannot be tantamount to non-payment of service tax and Revenue was given liberty to make necessary adjustment in their account if re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h as payment of service tax under wrong registration can be adjusted against the correct registration for which the service tax is actually due. Accordingly, in the light of the above circular, the department could have made the necessary adjustment instead of raising the demand on the appellant. 12. We find that this issue has been considered in various decisions/judgments which are cited by the appellant in their submissions. Some of the decisions are reproduced below:- 12.1 Auro Pumps Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India 2017 (7) TMI 24- Gujarat High Court- in this case, the duty is said to have been paid under incorrect assessee code i.e. Code no. 001 instead of Code No. 002. The Hon ble High Court held that when authorities stand became very clear no demand of duty or any sum payable from the petitioners so far as assessee code No. 001 is concerned and when the authority has also knowledge that there was a mistaken payment made under challan, which contained incorrect code i.e. Code no. 001, though it belonged to present assessee, who also has Code No. 002 also and two unequivocally intended to make payment demand, which was payable to him and which was paid, though mistakenl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re to pay service tax-Any person, liable to pay service tax in accordance with the provisions of section 68 or the rules made thereunder, who fails to pay such tax shall pay in addition to paying such tax, and interest on that tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 75. A penalty which shall not be less than one hundred rupees for every day during which such failure continues but which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which such failure continues, so, however, that the penalty under this clause shall not exceed the amount of service tax that he failed to pay. 14.2 In this case, service tax has already been paid to the Government Account albeit in Kolkata Commissionerate instead of Haldia Commissionerate. It is not the case of the department that service tax was not paid at all. Accordingly, we hold that the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act 1994 are not applicable in this case and hence the penalty imposed under section 76 is set aside. 15. Penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not imposable in this case, since non mentioning of GTA services in the service tax registration is a merely procedural lapse. Hence Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
