TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication for upholding the duty of excise and observe that the service tax paid by them is required to be adjusting towards the excise duty now confirmed against them. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant was paying service tax and was filing ST-3 returns which were not being objected by the Revenue. No case of suppression or misstatement can be made out against the assessee so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.70182 of 2017-Division Bench - FINAL ORDER NO.- 71138 / 2019 - Dated:- 19-6-2019 - SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady discharged service tax on the said activities by treating the same as services. They also contended that rate of tax is equivalent to the rate of Central Excise duty required to be paid by them and as such the entire situation was Revenue neutral. While dealing with the said plea of the Commissioner (Appeals) observed as under:- I observe that the appellant, might have paid service tax in excess of what was due but it cannot validate their stand regarding non-payment of Central Excise duty. Further, Service Tax and Central Excise duty are paid/payable under different statutes and excess payment under one Act cannot be adjusted against short/non-payment under another Act. 5. It is seen that the Revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice tax which is more or less equivalent to the excise duty required to be paid by them. We find no justification for upholding the duty of excise and observe that the service tax paid by them is required to be adjusting towards the excise duty now confirmed against them. 7. Apart from the merits of the case, we also note that the demand stands raised by invoking longer period of limitation. As observed in the case of B.N. Pack and in the case of Reliance Communication Ltd. supra the longer period would not be available inasmuch as the entire situation a Revenue neutral. In this case we also note that the appellant was paying service tax and was filing ST-3 returns which were not being objected by the Revenue. No case of supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
