2016 (8) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the present case are that the appellant is holder of Service Tax registration and is providing services falling under the category of Banking and other Financial Services during the relevant time. The appellant has obtained centralized registration and also obtained provisional assessment facility and paying taxes accordingly. As per the provisional assessment order, the appellant has to pay as tax a sum of Rs. 4.50 crores a month which the appellant has been paying. At times, the appellant has been paying taxes more than this amount and filing the returns but in few months, there was short payment of tax by the appellant while comparing to actual liability. Show-Cause Notice dated 14.5.2010 was issued on the appellant for period from Sept....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erms of Rule 6(4). He further submitted that both the adjudicating authorities failed to appreciate the fact that since the differential tax was paid before the final assessment, therefore, no interest is payable. He also submitted that the amount remitted by the appellant-bank was more than the provisional payment of Rs. 4.5 crores per month during the relevant period. During the months of September 2006, November 2006, March 2007 and June 2007, there was short payment of tax but the show-cause notice was issued on 14.5.2010 which is beyond the period of limitation. He also submitted that the show-cause notice was issued after more than one year from the relevant date without invoking the extended period of limitation. 4. On the other h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lue of taxable service as may be specified by him and the provisions of [the Central Excise Rules, 2002,] relating to provisional assessment, except so far as they relate to execution of bond, shall, so far as may be, apply to such assessment." Further, I also find that during the disputed period, the appellant has deposited more service tax than provisional assessment. But still it was less than the actual liability and further, interest cannot be demanded under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, because the appellant is not liable to pay interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1944 and the Rules made there-under i.e. Rule 6(4) which is made under Section 68 of the Act. Further, I find that the finding....