2013 (2) TMI 609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Arul, Superintendent, AR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants issued four invoices in the month of October 2006 against which they paid the service tax without receiving the value thereof. As such, it is the case of the appellants that there was an excess payment of service tax in the month of October 2006. There was a protracted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... did not give any intimation to the jurisdictional officers within 15 days as required in the rules. Thirdly, he has held that adjustment has been made for an amount of Rs. 1,96,749/- which is in excess of the monetary limit of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the impugned amount is covered by Rule 4B(ii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 inasmuch as th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. The learned DR vehemently opposes the contentions of the appellants and supports the impugned order. He also states that as per the rules, the appellants should not have paid any tax before receiving the payments. He states that there cannot be any excess payment by the appellants in view of the statutory provisions. 6. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I find that th....