TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said MSIL during the period May 2005 to February 2006 and therefore the question of reporting this excess payment or discrepancy by the appellants in their return filed for half year ending March, 2005 does not arise and therefore invoking the extended period on the ground that till the audit objection the appellants have not brought out the discrepancy in their return filed for the half year ending March, 2005 is not sustainable. Appeal of the appellant allowed both on merit as well as on limitation. - ST/153/2009-SM - 22464/2017 - Dated:- 19-10-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member None For the Appellant Shri Naveen Kushalappa, Joint Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d equivalent penalty of ₹ 1,49,380/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty only) under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 for contravention of provision of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules 1994. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant but the appellant has already filed written submissions along with the case-laws. 3. Heard the learned AR and perused the written submission filed by the appellant. In the grounds of appeal as well as in the written submissions, the appellant has submitted that the impugned order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of CCE Vs. Sentinel Security (P) Ltd. reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 806 (Tri.-Del.) and Sopariwala Exports Private Limited Vs. CCE wherein it has been held that the excess payment of service tax in one semester and adjusting taking credit of the same in the next semester without following the prescribed procedure under Section 74 of Chapter V of the Finance Act 1994 attracted only a short payment of interest and the matter was regularized on assessee paying the same. Further the appellant has also relied upon the following decisions in support of his submission that suo moto adjustment is valid. a) Punjab National Bank Vs. CCE ST, Chandigarh-II 2016 (43) S.T.R. 471 (Tri.-Del.) b) L T Sargent Lundy Limited Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
