TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectly concluded that when the assessee would not come under the ambit of service tax prior to 16.05.2005, Section 11D(1) would not be applicable. Adjustment of an amount of ₹ 2,73,952/- paid by the respondent - said amount was paid by mistake of law - Held that:- Sub-section (4) of 11D provides for adjustment of such amount inter alia arising against any other proceeding for determinatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the revenue, Ld. AR Shri. S. Govindarjan, reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that there is no provision for enabling such adjustment of amount paid to the account of the Central Government. He also submits that any amount collected as tax will have to be deposited to the exchequer, irrelevant of whether the same falls under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person has collected any amount in excess. In our opinion, the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly concluded that when the assessee would not come under the ambit of service tax prior to 16.05.2005, Section 11D(1) would not be applicable. 4.2 Coming to the second issue involving adjustment of ₹ 2,73,952/-, it is not disputed that the said amount was paid by mistake of law for the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
