9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. During the investigation, the appellant at the instance of the visiting officers, deposited an amount of Rs. 6,85,200.00 through TR-6 challan dt.19.09.2005. A show cause notice dt.25.09.2008 was issued proposing demand of Service Tax of Rs. 6,07,032.00 under the category of Business Auxiliary Service for the period 01.07.2003 to 27.08.2005. It was also proposed to appropriate the amount deposited by them along with interest during the investigation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order to the extent the demand of Service Tax was reduced to Rs. 4,43,192.00. He h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the Revenue on the identical issue. 3. Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that it is not a deposit, as the adjudicating authority already appropriated the amount against the demand of Service Tax. So, it is a payment of Service Tax and Section 11B of the Act, 1944 would be governed. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of United Spirit Ltd Vs CC (Import) Nhava Sheva 2008 (228) ELT 360 (Tri-Mum). He also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd Vs Union of India 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC). Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue also submits the decision relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the appellant during the course of investigation and as such have to be considered as deposits. The part of the amount so deposited has not been found by the Commissioner to be payable. As such, the appellants are entitled to the excess amount deposits by them. The law on the point that such deposits are not hit by the barred by limitation stands decided by a number of precedent decisions of the Tribunal. Reference in this regard may be made to Tribunal s decision in the case of Suri Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2001 (132) E.L.T. 480 (Tri.-Bang.)] as also to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat [2003 (158) E.L.T. 767 (Tri.)]. As s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
