TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month of September 2012 during the month of December 2012 - it is also noted that the conditions stipulated in sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 though invoked by Revenue, the same are unsubstantiated in the said show cause notice. Therefore, Revenue has failed to establish that the appellant has violated any conditions specified in the said sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - the appellant was eligible for utilization of excess paid service tax of Rs.60,17,195/- during the month of December 2012, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Mehul Jivani , Charte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of 16 branches and head office for the month of September 2012 before 5th October 2012 and due to high volume and various locations of branches, could not correctly calculate the service tax payable and paid excess service tax and the same was adjusted by them during the month of December 2012 and the said adjustment was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Revenue did not appreciate the said submission and decided the said show cause notice through the impugned order-in-original. The original authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.60,17,195/- and imposed equal penalty and also ordered the appellant to pay interest under the provisions of Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o enable Revenue to invoke extended period of limitation. 3. Heard the learned AR for Revenue. He has supported the impugned order. 4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. We have perused the show cause notice and the provisions of sub-rule (4A) and sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. We understand that the said sub-rule (4A) provides for adjustment of excess paid service tax during the succeeding month or quarter. We note that the said subrule does not require the said adjustment to be made during the immediately succeeding month and, therefore, we do not find any violation of the said sub-rule by the appellant in adjusting the amount excess paid for the month of September 2012 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
