2018 (4) TMI 973

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vices' and 'Business Auxiliary Services' for distribution of mutual funds. During the course of audit, on reconciliation of their financial records with the ST-3 returns, it was observed that the appellant had not discharged the service tax liability correctly. Vide their letter dated 25.07.2009, the assessee agreed to fact of short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 70,23,625/- in the financial year 2006-07 and 2007-08 and accordingly submitted a statement wherein they showed short payment of Rs. 62,63,534/- and Rs. 7,60,091 in the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Further in their letter they explained that they had paid excess service tax of Rs. 93,27,555/- in the financial years 2005-06 which they intended to set of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payment. After following due process of law, learned Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 19.03.2014 confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the entire demand in the present case is barred by limitation of time. He further submitted that the present case does not relate to short payment but excess service tax has been paid on account of error in calculation. The appellant promptly pointed out such error ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T-MUM. (e) Aneja Construction (India) Ltd vs CST - 2012(32) STR 458 (Tri. - Ahmd.). (f) CCE vs Hexacom India Ltd - 2006 (1) STR 110 (Tri. - Del). (g) Dell India Pvt Ltd vs CST - 2016 (42) STR 273 (Tri. - Bang.). (h) Tata Consultancy Services Ltd vs. CCE & ST - 2012- TIOL-1034-CESTAT-MUM. (j) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs CCE - 2006 (206) ELT 808 (Tri. - Del.). 5. On the other hand, learned A.R. reiterated the finding of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions by both parties and perusal of the records and the various decisions relied upon by the learned Consultant we find that the appellant vide various letters dated 3.3.2006 and 24.04.2006 has informed the department that they have adjusted the excess payment of ....