TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value of taxable service and service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received. Appellant claims that appellant has refunded the excess S-T to its customers - this sub-rule is applicable not only to the case of excess payment of service which can be made good in subsequent period and bit also to the case where taxable values are not ascertainable for longer period - sub-rule 6(3) is not dependent on provision of sub-rule 6(4). Moreover there is no time limit prescribed under sub-rule 6(3) for making adjustment - Following decision of assessee's own previous case [2014 (7) TMI 830 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.ST/167/2009 - Final Order No.51737/2014 - Dated:- 28-3-2014 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, therefore, filed the refund claim for a total amount of ₹ 10,52,871/- on 17.03.2008 for the refund of extra service to be paid under challans dated 02.09.2006, 02.01.2007, 03.03.2007 and 05.07.2007. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 02.07.2008 rejected the refund on the ground that bulk of the refund claim is time barred and entire refund claim is hit by unjust enrichment. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of the Asstt. Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 24.11.2008 held that refund claim filed on 17.03.2008 in respect of first three challans dated 2.9.2006, 2.1.2007 and 3.3.2007 is time barred and as such, the Asstt. Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment service tax in respect of a taxable service, which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him (calculated on a pro rate basis) against the service tax liability for the subsequent period, if the assessee has refunded the value of taxable service and the service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received and this aspect has been overlooked by the original adjudicating authority. He also cited the judgement of the Tribunal vide Final Order No.56347/2013 dated 30.04.2013 in the appellants own case for the previous period wherein the Tribunal on the basis of Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 has held that the appellant would be eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is covered under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules whereas Revenue s contention is that Rule 6(3) is not applicable. Rule 6(3) as it existed at the relevant times reads as under:- 6(3) Where an assessee has paid to the credit of Central Government Service Tax in respect of a taxable service, which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him (calculated on a pro rate basis) against the service tax liability for the subsequent period, if the assessee has refunded the value of taxable service and the service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received. Ongoing through this sub-rule, we find the excess amount of service tax paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
