https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204317 The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the respondent in an appeal filed by the Revenue regarding alleged non-payment of service tax. The court found that the respondent had adjusted excess service tax paid, complying with Rule 6(4A&B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, despite a technical default in notifying the Range Superintendent within the specified timeframe. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the respondent's adjustment and notification, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and confirming no short payment of service tax. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204317 The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the respondent in an appeal filed by the Revenue regarding alleged non-payment of service tax. The court found that the respondent had adjusted excess service tax paid, complying with Rule 6(4A&B) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, despite a technical default in notifying the Range Superintendent within the specified timeframe. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the respondent's adjustment and notification, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and confirming no short payment of service tax. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204317