9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent : Shri S.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative. ORDER Per : Mr. P.M. Saleem The appellants herein M/s. L&T Sargent & Lundy Limited had made excess payment of service tax of Rs. 2,49,858/- in May 2010 and subsequently adjusted the said excess amount paid towards payment of service tax during the months of June, July and August, 2010. However, the appellants had not intimated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payment of service tax and they have not adjusted any ineligible amount. It is not in dispute that they have paid the excess service tax amount of Rs. 2,49,858/- and the same is eligible to be adjusted towards the future service tax liabilities. It is his contention that though they had to intimate the department for such adjustments under the provisions of Rule 6(4A) and 6(4B), there was no suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the imposition of penalty under Section 78 is warranted. 4. On careful consideration of the arguments of both sides and perusal of the records, we find that there is no dispute about the fact that appellants have paid excess service tax amount of Rs. 2,49,858/- in May 2010. The dispute revolves around the procedure they have followed in adjusting the said excess amount against the future s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arised against the Service Tax liability of Rs. 2,49,858/- during the months of June, July and August, 2010. We therefore direct the lower authorities to regularise the matter accordingly. The penalty of Rs. 2,49,858/- imposed under Section 78 is liable to be set-aside. We hold so. The demand of service tax of Rs. 2,49,858/- and interest, and equivalent penalty under Section 78 are set-aside. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
