Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 103 - CESTAT AHMEDABADDemand of service tax - Penalties under Section 76 and 77 - Suo moto adjustment of excess service tax paid - Held that:- appellant can make suo-motto adjustment subject to, inter-alia, the following procedural conditions - It has not been denied by the appellant that conditions were fulfilled by them but has relied upon the case law of Single Member bench in the case of Siemens Limited vs. CCE, Pondicherry (2013 (2) TMI 609 - CESTAT CHENNAI). It is seen from the facts of the case that the value on which service tax was paid was determined as late as June 2007 whereas the duty was paid in 2006. In Para 6 of the order in the case of Siemens Limited, it has been discussed by the Bench on facts, as to how the appellant has provided reasonable explanation in the case. In the present case, there is no reasonable explanation from the appellant as to why appellant was not able to adjust excess service tax paid in the liability for the succeeding month or quarter. The words used in Rule 6 (4B) is not ‘Subsequent Months or Quarters’. It is a well settled proposition that when a procedure is prescribed by the legislation for availing an exemption/ concession than that procedure has to be followed strictly in that fashion only - Confirmation of demand and interest has been correctly made by the first appellate authority which needs to be upheld. Appellant has a bonafide belief that it was their own money and they are entitled to adjust the excess amounts paid. Under these circumstances there cannot be any malafide on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, I set aside the penalties imposed upon the appellant under Section 76 and 77 read with Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|