2013 (2) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....service tax liability in respect of all the branches in the Delhi region. They were also filing the required Service tax returns. Under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, where an assessee had paid to the credit of Central Government, service tax in respect of a taxable service which is not so provided by him either wholly or partly for any reason, the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him calculated on pro-rata basis against his service tax liability for the subsequent period, if the assessee had refunded the value of taxable service and the Service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, provides for provisional assessment in a situation where the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o January 2006 service tax amounting to Rs. 13,95,399/- has been short paid. The Jurisdictional Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 13-11-09 confirmed the service tax demand of Rs. 13,95,399/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant under Section 77 and penalty of Rs. 200/- per day till the date of payment of service tax demanded under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Additional Commissioner's order and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated August 2010 dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal observed that it is Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules which was appli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity has gone wrong in not considering the adjustment under Rule 6(4A), that excess payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 13,95,399/- during April, 2005 - September 2005 period is evident from the ST-3 filed for that period and, therefore, this excess amount of service tax had been correctly adjusted against their service tax liability for December 2005 - January 2006 period, and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct 2.2 Shri Sunil Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasised that no evidence has been produced by the appellant that they had centralised registration, that the appellant for the purpose o....