2018 (10) TMI 1257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iod April 2012 to June, 2012 during the course of audit, the Department observed that the appellant has short-paid the Service Tax for an amount of Rs. 2,50,232/- for the aforesaid period. It was observed that the Service Tax rate for the period upto 31st March, 2012 was at the rate of 10.30%. However, w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the Service Tax rates were enhanced to 12.36%. Accordingly, a show cause notice No.1734 dated 09.03.2016 was served upon the appellant alleging that he was liable to pay Service Tax at the rate of 12.36% for the impugned period. Since he has paid at the rate of 10.3%, the short payment of Service Tax for the aforesaid amount was proposed to be recovered from the appellant alongwith the interest at the appropriate rate and t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssly barred by time. In addition, it is submitted that period in dispute is just of 3 months, which is a reasonable time to acquire knowledge about any change/amendment in the existing provision of law. There is no allegation of subsequent non-payment at the prevalent rate by the appellant. The demand in question is not sustainable. The orders of adjudicating authorities below, confirming the said demand are therefore liable to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Ld. Counsel has placed emphasis on following judgements:- 1. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs. CCE, Bombay - 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC) 2. Central Warehousing Corporation vs. CST, Ahmedabad - 2016 (41) STR 106 (Tri.-Admd.) 3. Parul Associates Interiors Pvt. Ltd. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n by the assessee to acquire knowledge of any change in the existing provision of law. But the fact of the present case is that the appellant herein acquired the knowledge of the aforesaid enhancement in July, 2012 itself, as apparently and admittedly he started discharging his liability qua the impugned services at the rate of 12.36% subsequently. It was the incumbent duty of the appellant to make good the deficiency for the disputed period since when the said enhancement had come into effect. But the appellant opted to not to make good the short levy even at the time of filing his ST-3 Return in November, 2012. The said short payment was never subsequently informed by the appellant on his own to the Department. Resultantly, the same was n....