Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Canara Bank Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (LTU)

2016 (8) TMI 42 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Demand on interest on delayed payment of service tax - period of limitation - they were paying service tax under provisional assessment as per Rule 6(4) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Held that:- During the disputed period, the appellant has deposited more service tax than provisional assessment. But still it was less than the actual liability and further, interest cannot be demanded under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, because the appellant is not liable to pay interest in accordance with the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. JMJ/31/2011 dated 24.8.2011, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original No. 69/2010 LTU dated 29.10.2010, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (LTU) and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant is holder of Service Tax registration and is providing services falling under the category of Banking and other Financial Service .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Show-Cause Notice dated 14.5.2010 was issued on the appellant for period from September 2006 to June 2007 requiring the appellant to show cause why interest amounting to ₹ 1,11,318/- could not be demanded under the provisions of Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. The show-cause notice was contested by the appellant on merits as well as on limitation but the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 29.10.2010 confirmed the interest demand of ₹ 1,11,318/-. The appellant file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant - bank was permitted to pay tax amount of ₹ 4.50 crores on provisional basis monthly. The second contention of the learned C.A. is that the show-cause notice is beyond limitation. He further submitted that findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant was not under provisional assessment during the period under dispute is wrong. He further submitted that the provisional assessment order is valid till it is withdrawn as per the Department s letter date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2006, November 2006, March 2007 and June 2007, there was short payment of tax but the show-cause notice was issued on 14.5.2010 which is beyond the period of limitation. He also submitted that the show-cause notice was issued after more than one year from the relevant date without invoking the extended period of limitation. 4. On the other hand, learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that as per the Department s letter dated 3.5.2005 wherein it is speci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

letter issued by the Department and the appellant was required to deposit a sum of ₹ 4.5 crores monthly. This facility was given to the appellant as per Rule 6(4) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 which is reproduced herein below : Rule 6(4) : Where an assessee is, for any reason, unable to correctly estimate, on the date of deposit, the actual amount payable for any particular month or quarter, as the case may be, he may make a request in writing to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elate to execution of bond, shall, so far as may be, apply to such assessment. Further, I also find that during the disputed period, the appellant has deposited more service tax than provisional assessment. But still it was less than the actual liability and further, interest cannot be demanded under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, because the appellant is not liable to pay interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1944 and the Rules made there-under i.e. Rule .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version