TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the Order-in-Original to the extent it pertains to disallowance of input service credit but dropped the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is registered with the service tax authoriti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of tax and interest and dropped the penalty on the ground that it was a bona fide mistake rather than a mala fide attempt to take credit. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed without considering the facts and the law. He further submitted that the show-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is purely an error in disclosure. He further submitted that as per Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 which allows claiming back amounts initially paid as tax and later on reduced due to renegotiations. He also submitted that it is a case of adjustment of excess tax paid which is permitted under law and in support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * CCE vs. SRC Projec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad of 'D4' which is only an error in disclosure. Further, I find from the perusal of the service invoice which is placed on record and also the credit notes issued by the appellant and the disclosure in the service tax return, there is no revenue loss in the present case as it is only an adjustment of the credit availed and further, in the decisions cited supra, I find that the service tax paid in....