https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250395 The appellant, engaged in providing services, made excess tax payments and adjusted them in subsequent months. A show cause notice was issued for non-compliance with Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, leading to a tax demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The appellant claimed entitlement for adjustment under Rule 6(4B)(ii) due to delayed payment details but lacked evidence. The Revenue argued for mandatory intimation to the jurisdictional officer for adjustments. The court remanded the case for the appellant to provide evidence supporting the delayed receipt claim, emphasizing the right to a proper hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand. en-us Thu, 01 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250395 The appellant, engaged in providing services, made excess tax payments and adjusted them in subsequent months. A show cause notice was issued for non-compliance with Rule 6(4A) of Service Tax Rules, leading to a tax demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The appellant claimed entitlement for adjustment under Rule 6(4B)(ii) due to delayed payment details but lacked evidence. The Revenue argued for mandatory intimation to the jurisdictional officer for adjustments. The court remanded the case for the appellant to provide evidence supporting the delayed receipt claim, emphasizing the right to a proper hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 01 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250395