TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent year, in the facts of the case before us, it is evident that the appellant had taken excess credit of ₹ 1.01 crores in 2008-09 as against short credit availed of ₹ 1.11 crore during 2009-10. The mistake has occurred only due to rounding off of the percentages of the credit to the nearest decimal. Thus, there is no evidence forthcoming from the records that the taking of credit was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I Commissionerate. 2. Vide the impugned order, the learned adjudicating authority has confirmed a service tax demand of ₹ 1.01 crore along with interest thereon and also imposing equivalent amount of penalty apart from penalties of ₹ 5,000/- on the appellant, M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounted to ₹ 1.11 crore. The department issued notice to the appellant vide notice dated 23/04/2012 relying on the details given by the appellant vide letter dated 20/10/2011 and the audit report dated 12/11/2012. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was only due to rounding off, the excess taking of credit or the short-taking of credit arose and there was no intention on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6. As per the said sub-rule, the credit has to be reversed provisionally every month and such credit reversal has to be finalised at the end of the year. There is no provision in the said rules for adjusting the excess credit taken in a particular year with the short credit taken during the subsequent year. Therefore, the impugned order is susta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
