TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of adjustment of excess payment of service tax towards short payment and there is no further liability on the part of the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/285/2007-DB - 20800/2018 - Dated:- 8-6-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Raghavendra, Advocate, G.Sampath S.Raghu Advs For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 15/03/2007 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of ₹ 27,43,193/- towards service tax short paid during July and September 2003 along with interest as per Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not fulfilled the conditions as stipulated under Rule 6(3) of the STR and therefore the adjustment of excess payment of duty is not permissible. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the appellant is a public sector undertaking spread throughout the state of Kerala and considering the demand of customers in Kerala, appellant extended a service to Kerala during the month of October 2002. However the accounting procedures were not fully streamlined. He further submitted that all the service centers in the State of Kerala are controlled by Trivandrum. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. BSNL Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2011(240 STR 719 (Tri. Del.)] ii. General Manager (CMTS) Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2011(36) STR 1084 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Dell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2016(42) STR 273 (Tri. Bang)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After hearing both sides and perusal of material on record, we find that the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the STR, 1994 are not applicable in the present case whereas the provisions of Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 are applicable. Further we find that though the provisions of Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B) are inserted subsequently but they are applicable retrospectively considering the fact that the appellant is a public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
