TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under General Insurance Business - the appellants DICGC are required to pay service tax on the taxable service of deposit insurance with effect from 20.09.2011. Whether the insurance premium should be considered as cum-tax-value? - HELD THAT:- The matter is no more res integra in view of the various decisions taken by this Tribunal, which were also upheld by the Apex Court. In particular, it is found that Kolkata Bench of CESTAT in the case of COMMR OF C. EX CUS., PATNA VERSUS ADVANTAGE MEDIA CONSULTANT [ 2008 (3) TMI 59 - CESTAT KOLKATA] has held that Where the gross amount charged by a service provider, for the service provided or to be provided is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of such taxable service shall be such amount as with the addition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged. The plea advanced by the department on the issue of cum-tax-value of premium collected for deposit insurance by the appellants DICGC, that such treatment of gross amount of premium collected by appellants DICGC as inclusive of service tax will tantamount to redu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tual position that the show cause notice proceedings has not been concluded and thus there were no confirmed demands on the date of passing of the order by the concerned Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, even to consider under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, the first appellate authority cannot be found fault - The appellants DICGC may be given liberty to raise any issues before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai, when the matter is remanded for denovo adjudication. Further, while taking up the matter in denovo proceedings for redetermination of the interest payable for actual delay in payment of service tax, the appellants DICGC shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard in person and for submission of the relevant documents in support of their claim - the matter needs to be sent back to the first appellate authority, to determine the actual amounts of refunds of service tax payable to the appellants DICGC. Appeal disposed off. - Service Tax Appeal No. 85937-85938 of 2016, Service Tax Appeal No. 86014 of 2016 and Service Tax Appeal No. 86257 of 2016 - A/ 85639-85642/2023 - Dated:- 28-4-2023 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on authorities, the assessee being aggrieved had preferred to file appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai. Further in respect of refund claims filed by the assessee which were rejected/ sanctioned and appropriated against certain demands, by the original authority, appeals were also preferred by the assessee. Revenue also filed two appeals before the said Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai claiming that insurance premium collected is not inclusive of service tax and for recovery of short payment of service tax. In respect of all such five appeals filed by the assessee and two appeals filed by the department, the said Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai had passed a common order vide Order-in-Appeal SK/128134/LTU/MUM/2015 dated 11.01.2016 (impugned order). As the issues in appeal are having reference to various orders in original passed by original authority and are covered under the common order in appeal, these details have been captured in brief as below, for better appreciation of the facts of the case. Table - 1 Issues in brief which were handled in impugned order, the common Order in Appeal passed N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dealing with the issues arising out of the five appeals filed by the party and the two appeals filed by the Revenue, the issues for determination was crystallised by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai as follows: 7. I find that the following issues arise for my determination which I propose to take up separately: (a) Whether the amount of premium collected by DICGC can be considered as inclusive of service tax which is the issue in two appeals filed by the department and one appeal filed by DICGC viz., Appeal No. 04/2014/D, 05/2014/D 48/2014/P? (b) Whether the Department is right in the adjusting the refund amount under section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the demand of interest for delay in payment of service tax, even when show cause notice demanding such interest has not been adjudicated which is the issue in Appeal No. 17/2014/P 18/2014/P filed by DICGC? (c) Whether the due date for payment of service tax for DICGC in the instant case is 6th May and 6th November of each year or 6th June or 6th December of each year, which is the issue in Appeal No. 17/2014/P 18/2014/P filed by DICGC? (d) Whether interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK32/R/13-14 dt. 12.02.2014 and Order-in-Original No.LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-33/R/13-14 dt. 12.02.2014 could not have been appropriated against such unconfirmed demand. .. 8.5. Since the appropriation of interest against the amount of refund sanctioned vide impugned orders dated 12.02.2014 are found to be not in conformity with the service tax provisions, the arithmetical correctness of the calculation of interest consequent to determination of the due date for payment of service tax for DICGC, which are issues raised in Appeal No. 17/2014/P 18/2014/P filed by DICGC are not required to be looked into. .. 9.1. I find from the copies of Order-in-Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-32/R/13-14 dated. 12.02.2014 and Order-in-Original-No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-33/R/13-14 dated 12.02.2014 submitted by DICGC that an amount of Rs.19,20,30,665/- sanctioned as refund was appropriated against interest of Rs.19,50,40,268/- . However, in the foregoing paras while dealing with appeals filed by DICGC against these two Order in Originals dated 12.02.2014, I have held that this appropriation of refund sanctioned against unconfirmed demand of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to them forthwith. (c) I allow the appeal of DICGC filed against Order- in- Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK-18/R/2014 dated 01.08.2014 to the extent it appropriates an amount of Rs.19,29,66,692/- is set aside. The amount of refund sanctioned to DICGC in this Order in Original shall be paid to them forthwith. (d) I allow the appeal of DICGC filed by setting aside the Order- in- Original No. LTU/MUM/ST/GLT-5/ANK12/R/2014 dated 08.07.2014. The amount of Rs.10,99,93,595/- sought as refund shall be paid to them forthwith. (e) I reject the appeal of DICGC filed against Letter F. No. LTU/MUM/ CX/DICGC/23/ 2008-Pt.II dt. 14.07.2015 issued by The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai being rendered as infructuous. ( ..) Commissioner APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL : 4.1. Being aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai, the assessee had filed the following appeals. The details of these appeals and the gist of the grounds claimed by the assessee are as follows: Appeal No. ST/85938/2016: The assessee claims that in the impugned order, the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order claiming that the appellate authority has erroneously held that the gross amount of premium is to be treated as cum-tax since DICGC has not let in any factual basis for this, before the appellant authority during the appeal proceedings. Therefore, the reliance placed by the appellate authority on sub-section (2) of section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 is misplaced. Accordingly the Department had made a prayer in their appeal for determination of the following: (a) Whether after taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances as stated in the grounds for appeal memorandum, the said Order-in-Appeal is legal and proper? (b) Whether the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai, has erred in holding that the service tax liability required to be discharged by DICGC on the premium cannot be collected over and above the premium amount and that the premium amount collected has to be necessarily considered as inclusive of the service tax element? (c) Whether by an order passed under Section 86 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, the Hon ble CESTAT should remand the case to Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I C. Ex and Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount demanded against refund sanctioned is erroneous, therefore this appeal of the assessee is infructuous. Hence, the Chartered Accountant representing the assessee prayed that this issue of mistake apparent from the records, should be resolved by directing the concerned authority for refund of the eligible amount to them. (ii) With reference to the ST-3 returns filed by the assessee for the period October, 2011 March, 2012 of the financial year 2011-2012, wherein the gross amount for the services rendered have been shown as received in November, 2011 and in respect of ST-3 return for the period April, 2012 June, 2012 of the financial year 2012-2013, wherein the gross amount for the services rendered have been shown as received in May, 2012, the learned Chartered Accountant for the assessee claimed that the due dates for payment of service tax in their case is 6th December, 2011 and 6th June, 2012 respectively. Thus they pleaded that the interest for the delayed payment requires to be recalculated as claimed in their appeal. (iii) the Chartered Accountant for the assessee claimed that the provisions of section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, is squarely applicable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by this Tribunal, in the instant case, are as follows: (i) Does the deposit insurance premium collected by the appellants DICGC for the disputed period October, 2011 to March, 2012 and April, 2012 to September, 2012, as discussed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai, in paragraphs 7 to 7.6 of the impugned order concluding that premium amount collected by DICGC has to be necessarily considered as inclusive of service tax element, require redetermination for the purpose of determination of service tax liability. (ii) whether the interest payable by the appellants DICGC for the delay in payment of service tax on the due date, require determination in terms of service tax legislation; and whether such amount of interest is required to be redetermined, contrary to the conclusion arrived at in paragraph 8.5 of the impugned order. (iii) whether the findings made by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai in the impugned order, in respect of claims made by the appellants DICGC on appropriation of the refunds sanctioned twice, not rectifying the mistake apparent on record, and the claim of the department for computation of tax liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he charges collected by DICGC are not taxable under the taxable service of General Insurance Service. This view was reiterated by CBEC letter dated 22/4/2009. 2.5. The LTU, Mumbai expressed reservations about the correctness of the above view and after re-examination of all the relevant issues, the CBEC, vide letter dated 20/9/2011 clarified that the insurance activity of DICGC falls within the ambit of section 65(105) (d) of Finance Act,1994 and is chargeable to service tax under general insurance business. DICGC were accordingly addressed letters on 22/9/2011, 5/10/2011 and 10/10/2011. 2.6. DICGC obtained Service Tax registration thereafter and started paying Service Tax w.e.f. the half year ending March 2013. They furnished the information on gross charges recovered up to 31/3/2011 on 13/10/2011 19/10/2011. 2.7. Show cause notice demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs.2075.65 Cr. invoking extended period of limitation was issued on 24/10/2011 for the period from 1/5/2006 to 31/3/2011 and demanding Service Tax amounting to Rs.283.15 Cr. was issued on 07/03/2012, for the period from 1/4/2011 to 30/9/2011 within normal time limit. Two more show cause notices were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clarified by the CBIC vide letter No.354/164/2008-TRU dated 24.02.2009 that DICGC is not taxable under the taxable service of general insurance business ; this view was reiterated by CBIC letter dated 22.04.2009. However, after the re-examination of all the relevant issues, the CBIC by letter dated 20.09.2011 clarified that the deposit insurance activity of DICGC falls within the ambit of section 65(105)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to Service Tax under General Insurance Business . 6.4. We also find that this Tribunal had clearly held in the above earlier order that the service tax demand for the period prior to 20.09.2011 is set aside in view of the clarification given by the CBIC vide letter dated 24.02.2009 stating that the said service is not taxable, which was withdrawn vide letter dated 20.09.2011. 6.5. Further, the said earlier order of this Tribunal also stated in clear terms that appellants DICGC are liable to pay interest therein, in case there is any delay in payment of service tax by the due date as prescribed in the service tax legislation. Thus we find that the appellants DICGC are required to pay service tax on the taxable service of depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order had upheld the remand order of Commissioner (Appeals) where cum-tax benefit was directed to be given. The party was rendering Advertising Agency service and Service tax was not collected for services rendered to government agencies. It held that Service tax being an indirect tax, was borne by consumer of goods/services and the same was collected by assessee and remitted to government and total receipts for rendering services should be treated as inclusive of Service tax due to be paid by ultimate customer unless Service tax was paid separately by customer. The Tribunal had noted that cum-tax value has been incorporated in Section 67 of Finance Act, 1994 vide amendments made subsequently. 7.3. We further find that in a similar matter, in the context of excise duty came up before the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Appeal (Civil) 3783 of 2000 in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited [2002 (2) SCR 99 dated 27/02/2002] wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court decided in the judgement dated 27.02.2002, as follows: Judgement: 2002 (2) SCR 99 The following Orders of the Court was delivered : The respondent is manufacturing motor vehicl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en so construed by this Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Ors. v. Bata India Ltd., [1996] 4 SCC 563, and it is thus clear that when cum-duty price is charged, then in arriving at the excisable value of the goods the element of duty which is payable has to be excluded. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly prceeded on the basis that the amount realised by the respondent from the sale of scrap has to be regarded as a normal wholesale price and in determining the value on which excise duty is payable the element of excise duty which must be regarded as having been incorporated in the sale price, must be excluded. There is nothing to show that once the demand was raised by the Department, the respondent sought to recover the same from the purchaser of scrap. The facts indicate that after the sale transaction was completed, the purchaser was under no obligation to pay any extra amount to the seller, namely, the respondent. In such a transaction, it is the seller who takes on the obligation of paying all taxes on the goods sold and in such a case the said taxes on the goods sold are to be deducted under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) and this is precisely what has been directed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We further find from the records of the case, that the plea advanced by the department on the issue of cum-tax-value of premium collected for deposit insurance by the appellants DICGC, that such treatment of gross amount of premium collected by appellants DICGC as inclusive of service tax will tantamount to reduction in premium amount which is solely decided by the Reserve Bank of India and the appellants DICGC does not have any unilateral authority to alter the rate of premium to be collected from the insured banks and they have to obtain the prior approval of the RBI, has been found to have been overcome by specific approval of the RBI as follows. We find from the records that the Reserve Bank of India in the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee of the Central Board held on 22nd July, 2015 the following decision has been taken. 5. The Committee considered Executive Director s Memorandum dated July 16, 2015 on Need for Specific approval of Reserve Bank of India for treatment of premium inclusive of Service Tax for the period October, 2011 to March, 2013 Additional Service Tax liability on DICGC and passed the following resolution: RESOVLED that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by the service provider. SECTION 75. Interest on delayed payment of service tax. Every person, liable to pay the tax in accordance with the provisions of section 68 or rules made there under, who fails to credit the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central Government within the period prescribed, shall pay simple interest at such rate not below ten per cent. and not exceeding thirty-six per cent. per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette for the period by which such crediting of the tax or any part thereof is delayed: Provided that in the case of a person who collects any amount as service tax but fails to pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government, on or before the date on which such payment is due, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such other rate of interest, as it may deem necessary: Provided further that in the case of a service provider, whose value of taxable services provided in a financial year does not exceed sixty lakh rupees during any of the financial years covered by the notice or during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abase access or retrieval services provided or agreed to be provided by any person located in a non-taxable territory and received by non-assessee online recipient, the service tax payable for the month of December, 2016 and January, 2017, shall be paid to the credit of the Central Government bythe 6th day of March, 2017. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (1), every person liable to pay service tax, may, on his own volition, pay an amount as service tax in advance, to the credit of the Central Government and adjust the amount so paid against the service tax which he is liable to pay for the subsequent period: Provided that the assessee shall,- (i) intimate the details of the amount of service tax paid in advance, to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise within a period of fifteen days from the date of such payment; and (ii) indicate the details of the advance payment made, and its adjustment, if any in the subsequent return to be filed under section 70 of the Act. (2) Every assessee shall electronically pay the service tax payable by him, through internet banking: Provided that the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase may be. (4B)The adjustment of excess amount paid, under sub-rule (4A), shall be subject to the condition that the excess amount paid is on account of reasons not involving interpretation of law, taxability, valuation or applicability of any exemption notification. (4C)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (4), (4A) and (4B), where the person liable to pay service tax in respect of service of renting of immovable property has paid to the credit of Central Government any amount in excess of the amount required to be paid towards service tax liability for a month or quarter, as the case may be, on account of non-availment of deduction of property tax paid in terms of notification No. 29/2012-Service Tax, dated the 20th June, 2012, from the gross amount charged for renting of the immovable property for the said period at the time of payment of service tax, the assessee may adjust such excess amount paid by him against his service tax liability within one year from the date of payment of such property tax and the details of such adjustment shall be intimated to the Superintendent of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the service provider within a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the financial year 2011-2012 filed on 18.07.2012, that the gross amount received as the value of taxable services is shown as Rs. 2603,51,60,801/- for the services rendered by the appellants DICGC and it is also shown as the same has been received in November, 2011; and in respect of ST-3 return for the period April, 2012 June, 2012 of the financial year 2012-2013 filed on 14.12.2012, that the gross amount received as the value of taxable services is shown as Rs.2793,16,30,170/- for the services rendered by the appellants DICGC and it is also shown as the same has been received in May, 2012. The service tax payable for the above two periods have also been shown in the respective ST-3 returns on this basis, the assessee had claimed that the due dates for payment of service tax in the case is 6th December, 2011 and 6th June, 2012. 8.3. We also find from the records of the case, that apparently there is no difference of views by both the parties, i.e., appellants DICGC and the department, on the issue that the due date for payment of service tax in this case, is the 6th day of the month, immediately following the calendar month in which the deposit insurance premium was receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 Interest calculation @18% for 145 days (06.11.2011 to 30.03.2012) November 2011 24 days December, 2011 -- 31 days January, 2012 -- 31 days February, 2012 -- 29 days March, 2012 -- 30 days Total --145 days 19, 17,54,309 - 6 Interest calculation @18% for 115 days (06.12.2011 to 30.03.2012) December, 2011 -- 25 days January, 2012 -- 31 days February, 2012 -- 29 days March, 2012 -- 30 days Total --115 days - 15,37,25,564 Similarly, for the demand of interest during the disputed period April, 2012 to June, 2012, it is claimed by the appellants DICGC that the show cause notice had wrongly captured the month in which the taxable amount was received as April, 2012 , and treated the due date for payment of service tax as 06.05.2012 ; whereas the taxable amount was actually received by the appellants DICGC in May, 2012 and thus the actual due date for payment of service tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable services. In order to arrive at a conclusion on the correct date on which the service tax is due to be paid as per the provisions of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, with certainty upon confirmation of the facts, we feel that the matter should go back to the original Appellate Authority i.e., Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai. 8.5. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the request of the appellants DICGC as well the request of the department for re-calculation of the interest on delayed payment of service tax taking into account the appellant s submissions on when the amounts received by them as deposit insurance premium; issue of invoices or any other documents indicating the completion of provision of services rendered by the appellants etc. We thus find that for achieving the above object, the issue needs to go back the first appellate authority for computation of the same. 8.6. During the course of arguments, the Chartered Accountant for the assessee though shown the ST-3 returns in support of their stand, there are many similar documents which needs to be seen for arriving at the correct conclusion on the due date for payment of service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that he has also rightly held that in terms of the departmental instructions vide CBIC s Excise Manual at par-III, Chapter 18, in para 1.3, it is stated that if the stay application is filed by an assessee against the Order in Original confirming the duty demand, no coercive action should be taken to realise the dues till the disposal of stay application by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be. However, we find subsequently these vexatious issues have attained finality in terms of the earlier Order passed by the Tribunal on 11.03.2015. Hence, the appellants DICGC should have made an application before the jurisdictional Commissioner who could have re-determined the interest for the actual delay in payment of service tax. Though the first appellate authority rightly held that there is no ground for appropriation of the amount claimed as arrears, in the absence of the its confirmation by the competent authority, which was pending at that time, this could not be done as per the legal provisions. Hence, it was rightly held by him that there was no appropriation of the amount twice. 9.3. However, it is a fact that the appellants DICGC were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove and decision in favour of the appellants DICGC at (b) to (d) above, and taking into account the need for redetermination of the interest on actual delay in payment of service tax, as already decided in the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 11.03.2015, we find that the matter needs to be sent back to the first appellate authority, to determine the actual amounts of refunds of service tax payable to the appellants DICGC. 9.4. Hence, we find that the appellants DICGC may be given liberty to raise any issues before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, Mumbai, when the matter is remanded for denovo adjudication. Further, while taking up the matter in denovo proceedings for redetermination of the interest payable for actual delay in payment of service tax, the appellants DICGC shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard in person and for submission of the relevant documents in support of their claim. 10.1. In respect of the prayer made by the Department for computation of tax liability over and above the amount collected by DICGC as insurance premium, we find that this Tribunal in its earlier order dated 11.03.2015, had specifically stated that the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We could only presume at this stage, that such a letter could have been issued by CBIC, directly addressing to the Chief Commissioner, Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai, in view of the proviso clause (a) which states that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued so as to require any Central Excise Officer to make particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner. 10.4. Further, it is noticed that the services provided by the appellants DICGC for deposit insurance business are as per the provisions of DICGC Act, 1961; and the appellants are solely providing the service of deposit insurance as a subsidiary of RBI, under the role of Deposit Insurer as envisaged by the Government under Deposit Insurance Scheme which was initially extended to all functioning commercial banks and later extended to co-operative banks, Regional Rural Banks etc. The appellants are registered as Large Taxpayer Unit for both direct and indirect tax purposes in the year 2008. At this juncture, the appellants were asked to take service tax registration and pay service tax vide letter dated 07.07.2008.Thus this clarification could have been issued by the CBIC i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said service tax shall not be required to be paid in view of the said practice of non-levy. However, in this case, the CBIC had simply issued the clarification for charging the service tax on the taxable services provided by the appellant forthwith by issue of clarification letter dated 20.09.2011. At this juncture, it could only be persumed that this may be for the reason, that the service provider is a sole and single entity created under the specific enactment i.e., DICGC Act, 1961 and the same is functioning under the jurisdiction of LTU, Mumbai, which is the one single office. Hence, such clarification issued by CBIC to Chief Commissioner, LTU, Mumbai would have been felt sufficient to deal with the issue. We also find that in any case, the demand of service tax for the past period prior to 20.09.2011, by way of show cause notice proceedings initiated by the department has been set aside by the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 11.03.2015. In view of the above discussions on the settled position on past liability of service tax on the appellants DICGC, we abundantly make it clear that there is no ground for the department for computation of tax liability afresh. 11. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Government by the appellants DICGC and the amount of interest payable due to delay in payment of such service tax as elaborated above at para 11.1 and 11.2, respectively. 11.4. We also direct that the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Excise Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai-I shall verify the various claims of the appellants DICGC, with documentary proof that may be submitted by the appellants DICGC, and give due allowance to the same, if found otherwise in order as per law, while computing the interest for delay in payment of service tax liability. 11.5. We also direct that the appellants DICGC shall submit necessary documentary proof with reference to the above claims within one month of the receipt of this order and the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Central Excise Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai-I, shall complete the exercise of passing an order on the issues remanded to him, within further period of three months from the date of receipt of the documents from the appellants DICGC. 12. Both the appeals are disposed off in the above terms. (Pronounced in open court on 28.04.2023) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
