2017 (7) TMI 409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that appellant is a manufacturer of "Motor Vehicle, Cast Articles" . During the month of April, 2010 appellant was liable to pay service tax of Rs. 2,72,237/- against which they have paid cash of Rs. 15480/- and balance amount of Rs. 2,56,757/- has been adjusted against service tax paid in excess in the month of March, 2010. The department raised obje....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terest from 6-5-2010 to 22-8-2011 under Section 75 of the Finance Act and also imposed penalty under Section 76 and 77. 2. Shri. P. V. Sadavarte, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the proposal of the Revenue is not correct for the reason that as per Rule 6 (4A) the excess amount of service tax paid by the assessee can be adjusted against service tax liability for the succeeding month o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....akh and since balance amount could not have been adjusted there is short payment of service tax in the month of April, 2010 accordingly the demand was rightly confirmed. Moreover, appellant themselves claimed the refund of excess adjusted amount and the same was granted and appropriated, for this reason now appellant could not have argued that the adjustment was made correctly. As regard the inter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... correct. As regard the interest, since there is delay in payment of service tax on the due date till appropriation i.e. 22-8-2011 interest is clearly chargeable, hence, I uphold the demand of interest. As regard the penalty, I find that the adjustment was made by the appellant due to interpretation of provision of Rule 4(A) and 4(B). Moreover, excess paid service tax even though not adjustable th....