2016 (6) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....air, BAS, GTA, Consulting Engineer, Sponsorship services etc. and holding Centralised Service Tax Registration. A Show Cause Notice dated 08.04.2013 was issued to the appellants proposing demand of service tax of Rs. 5,20,732/- along with interest under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 and proposing imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants were on appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant was represented by Shri S. Jayanth, Consultant, who....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. CCE, Chandigarh-2014 (36) STR 1084 (Tri.-De.) 2. Jubilant Organosys Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-II-2014-TIOL-1870-CESTAT-DEL 3. M/s. Plantech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-2015-TIOL-2497-CESTAT-MUM 4. Garima Associates Vs. CCE, Chandrapur-2015 (40) STR 247 (Tri.-Mum.) He submits that in the case of Garima associates (supra), it has been held that intention of the Rule is very clear that whatsoever excess amount was paid in advance, the same should be adjusted against forth coming tax liability and if it is not allowed it will amount that Government will be unujustly enriched with excess amount which cannot be the intention of the statute. Merely for non-observance of the procedure laid down in the rule, canno....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity for the month of July. Hence the demands are sustainable. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. The short issue to be decided is whether the appellant has short paid the service tax during the month of July, 2011 by wrongly adjusting the service tax excess paid by them in the month of May, 2011 or otherwise. Both the authorities below have observed that as per Rule 6 (4A) of STR, 1994, it is a wrong adjustment since Rule says that the assessee may adjust such excess amount paid by him against his service tax liability for the succeeding month or quarter and not in the subsequent months. The contention of the appellant is that the benefit of the same should be extended to the subsequent months after the succeeding month. It is ....