9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in providing telecommunication services all over DK telecom district and are registered service providers of telephone and telegraph services. Though the service is provided through Telephone exchanges, billing and accounting is done centrally at the District General Manager's Telecom Office. The bills along with service tax are being collected at various customer service centres, DTOs/CTOs, Banks, Post Officers scattered over the telecom district. Because of this, it is very difficult to compile and calculate the service tax collected during the month and pay the same by the due date. Hence, appellants were provisionally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,98,063/- being the excess service tax paid by the assessee for the month of November 2005 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. Further the Assistant Commissioner appropriated the refund amount Rs. 13,98,063/- being an amount paid in excess for the month of November 2005 towards the service tax due and short paid for the month of February 2006 in terms of Section 87 of Finance Act as if the said amount is adjusted and paid on the date of sanctioning the refund by passing the order and also demanded interest under Section 75 for the period by which such crediting of the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central Government for the period of delay. Aggrieved by the Orders-in-Origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision in the appellant's own case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2010(17) STR 209 (Tri. Del.)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant does not have centralized registration; therefore they are not entitled to do suo motto adjustment of excess service tax paid in the subsequent months under the provisions of Rule 6(4A). 6. On careful consideration of the submissions of both sides and perusal of the records, we find that in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the appellant on account of practical difficulties, paid the service tax in advance. Further, we find that BSNL is a Government owned company and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessments. There is no difficulty to remove the bottle neck and obstacles of the procedure when the appellant is entitled to the substantial relief and that too as a public sector. The rules are not tyrants but servant of law in aid to grant substantial relief required by law. What that is not required to be realised under law cannot be done. If the appellant-public sector is entitled to the adjustment by Rule 6(4A) and even though such adjustment was incorporated in statute book w.e.f. 16-6-05, the language of the rule does not suggest that the same should be read in a pedantic manner while the appellant is entitled to substantial relief. Therefore, it is necessary to conclude the assessment and arrive at a rational decision for appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
