9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jivani , Chartered Accountant , for the Appellant Shri Prabhakar Sharma , Superintendent , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR Brief facts of the case are that the appellant provides various services to their clients and is registered with Service Tax. Appellant has also taken centralized registration in respect of their head office and 16 branches a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax of Rs.60,17,195/- through the said show cause notice. The said show cause notice also had proposals for imposition of penalty and recovery of interest. Appellant contested the show cause notice and stated in their reply dated 21.10.2015 that the appellant was required to pay service tax in respect of 16 branches and head office for the month of September 2012 before 5th October 2012 and due to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice Tax Rules, 1994 provides for adjustment of excess paid service tax during the succeeding month. He has submitted that the rule does not require adjustment to be made during the immediate succeeding month but in the succeeding month as can be interpreted by the provisions of the said rule. He has submitted that Revenue has invoked the provisions of Rule 6(4B) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 which st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h ST-3 return for that month when the adjustment was done by the appellant and, therefore, there was no suppression on the part of the appellant to 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny conditions specified in the said sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. We, therefore, hold that the appellant was eligible for utilization of excess paid service tax of Rs.60,17,195/- during the month of December 2012. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. ( Order pronounced in the open cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
