AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1054
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paid an excess amount of Rs. 47,62,715/- as service tax in March 2007 and hence they adjusted the said amount towards service tax liability payable for April 2007. The department was of the view that no such adjustment is provided as per law. Therefore the demand has been raised alleging short-payment of service tax to the tune of Rs. 47,62,715/-. He submitted that the issue whether appellants are eligible to adjust the excess payment of service tax towards the liability of the subsequent month was considered by the Tribunal in various decisions which are as under:- (a) General Manager (CMTS) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh 2014 (36) STR 1084 (Tri. Del.) (b) Plantech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2016 (41) STR 850 (Tri. Mumbai) That according to sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, the assessee having centralized registration can adjust excess amount paid during the month towards the service tax liability of the succeeding month without any monetary limit. In the case of an assessee who do not have centralized registration, the monetary limit for such adjustment of service tax is Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal in the above ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subsequent year. He requested that the penalties may be set aside. 3. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The appellant is not contesting the demand of service tax under the category of sponsorship services and also the disallowance of credit availed on capital goods. The demand on said issues are upheld. 5.1 The first issue for consideration is whether the appellant can be allowed to adjust the excess paid service tax to the liability payable for the subsequent months. The issue stands covered by the decision relied by the counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal in the case of General Manager (CMTS) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh (supra) has discussed the issue in detail and observed as under:- "7.1 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 prescribes the manner of payment of service tax, which according to this sub-rule is to be paid with the banks notified by the C.B.E. & C. for this purpose in TR-6 form or, in any other manner as prescribed by the C.B.E. & C. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 covers a situation where an assessee had received payment for certain services to be provided and had paid the service tax on it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined for a particular month due to other reasons. Thus sub-rule (4A) read with Rule (4B) would apply to a situation where an assessee on account of his inability to correctly determine the amount received during a particular month for the service provided, has paid service tax on the basis of his estimation and subsequently, when the exact amount received during the month, has been determined, the amount of service tax paid on the estimation basis is found to be in excess of his actual tax liability. In fact, in such a situation the excess amount paid by him is like advance payment of service tax during the month in excess of the actual service tax liability and which can always be adjusted against his service tax liability for other months as there is no unjust enrichment angle involved. For example, if against actual payments of Rs. 4 crore received by an assessee in a particular month against services provided, on which his service liability @ 10% adv. is Rs. 40 lakhs, he has paid tax of Rs. 50 lakhs on the basis of his estimated receipt of rupees five crores during the month, the excess tax payment of Rs. 10 lakh paid is like an advance payment of tax whose incidence has not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the month can be adjusted against his tax liability during other months and in this regard, there cannot be any monetary limit." Following the same, we are of the view that the demand raised on this ground is unsustainable and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 5.2 The next issue for consideration is the credit availed on the service tax paid on advertisement on MTC buses. The case of the appellant is that though the invoices did not indicate the amount of service tax paid, they have availed credit on the basis of the rate quoted in the agreement. This argument does not find favour with us. As per Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, credit can be availed on service tax / duty when the documents evidence the payment of the same. Since the documents on which credit has been availed does not evidence the payment of service tax, we are of the view that the credit availed is incorrect. The demand raised on this issue is sustained. 5.3 An amount of Rs. 84,740/- has been disallowed being the credit taken on service tax paid on rent-a-cab service. The credit has been disallowed stating that rent-a-cab service is not used for providing output service. The appellant has explained....