9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax on their client nor paid the Service Tax with the Department. Subsequently, they were informed by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner (AC) that they are required to pay the Service Tax of Rs. 19,13,494/- for the work undertaken for Tripura Housing and Construction Board. The Appellants vide their Challan dated 22/01/2016 paid Rs. 18,18,283/- and on 08/02/2016, they have paid further Rs. 28,903/-. Thus, they have paid totally Rs. 18,47,186/-. The Appellant is a proprietary firm. Subsequently, they came to know that as a proprietary firm, they were required to discharge only 50% of the Service Tax when they provide Works Contract Service. For the excess Service Tax paid by them, they filed a refund claim for Rs. 7,96,757/-. Ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Tax initially. As soon as their mistake was pointed out, they have made the full payment of Rs. 18,47,186/-. While making this payment, they have made a mistake and paid the Service Tax @ 100% whereas they were eligible to pay concessional rate of 50% in terms of Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20/6/2012. This has actually resulted in excess payment of Rs.7,96,757/- which was refunded to them after prolonged litigation. He also submits that before issue of Show Cause Notice itself, they have calculated the interest payable as Rs. 94,462/- and paid the same on 09/06/2017. Therefore, he submits that the lower authorities are in error in confirming the interest of Rs. 7,02,469/- and imposing penalties of Rs. 10,49,587/-. He makes furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund of Rs. 7,96,757/-. All these documents are on record with the Assistant Commissioner who has passed the impugned OIO on 25/05/2018. Thus the Department was having full knowledge that out of the demanded amount of Rs. 18,47,186/-, the Jurisdictional AC himself has sanctioned refund of Rs. 7,96,757/-. The Adjudicating Authority has erroneously applied the interest rate of 18%, 24% and 30% the Appellant was a small party with annual turnover of less than Rs. 60 lakhs. From the Table given at Page 8 of the OIA (Page 25 of the Appeal Book), it is seen that the turnover of the Appellant was less than Rs.60 Lakhs. Therefore, the Appellant is required to pay 18% interest less 3% concession given to them (Net interest @ 15%). I find the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
