TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax, a liability that arose subsequently? - Held that: - the adjustment of the excess credit paid during the previous period is allowed as was also allowed in the appellant's own case during the previous period - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - ST/792/2011-DB - Final Order No. ST/A/54422/2016-CU(DB) - Dated:- 14-10-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Ashok K. Arya, Memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax amounting to ₹ 55,06,313/- and ₹ 22,76,458/-. The show cause notices also states that the assessee had adjusted the excess amount of Service Tax paid in earlier months in the succeeding months. Thus, I find that the main question is that whether the assessee was correct in adjusting excess amount of service tax paid in earlier months. The period involved pertains to April, 2005 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an assessee has paid to the credit of Central(3) Government service tax in respect of a taxable service, which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him (calculated on a pro rata basis) against his service tax liability for the subsequent period, if the assessee has refunded the value of taxable service and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is proper and correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal filed by the revenue is rejected. 13. The ratio of the aforementioned judgment is squarely applicable in the present case, as there is no dispute that the assessee (a PSU) had paid excess Service Tax, which they sought to adjust subsequently. The proceedings initiated by both the show cause notices is, therefore, ordered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h suo motu adjustment is not permissible. 5. As is seen from above, the Revenue has not otherwise disputed the applicability of Tribunal decision in the case of Powercell Battery (India) Ltd. [2010 (19) S.T.R. 400 (Tribunal)]. Their only contention is that the said decision was accepted by the Revenue as the amount involved was on the lower side. This reason, according to us, cannot take away ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
