TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd repair services. During the course of audit, it was observed by the Department that the appellant has shown the payment of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 67,918/- during the period 2010-11 to a Code No. AAOFA 3157 ESP 001 the said Code is not allotted to the appellant. Accordingly, vide show cause notice No.10637 dated 15.10.2014, it was alleged that the appellant has not discharged its liability of paying Service Tax to the extent of Rs. 67,918/-. The said payment was proposed to be recovered alongwith the interest at the appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty and the said proposal has been initially confirmed by the Order-in-Original No.48 dated 18.06.2015, which has been upheld by the order under challenge. 2. I have heard Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2011 itself hence they were not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. The order is accordingly prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 3. Per-contra, ld. DR has, while justifying the impugned order has impressed upon para 5.2 thereof, and has prayed for appeal to be dismissed. it is submitted that irrespective the appellant was allowed the refund, it was still his responsibility to deposit the Service Tax in dispute. The same has not been deposited, the proposal has rightly been confirmed by the adjudicating authority below. It is also impressed upon that the asserted inadvertent mistake was never brought to the notice of the Department by the appellant on its own. It is only after an Audit was conduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant for the disputed period. Perusal thereof makes it abundantly clear that the said return is about the impugned amount only and that it was filed on 14.04.2011 itself. Accordingly, irrespective the amount was not actually deposited against the appellants ST Code, the fact remains is that the notice of impugned mistake was to the Department since April 2011 itself. In the given circumstances, the allegations of the Department about suppression of facts on part of the appellant with the mention that the mistake came to the notice only at the time of Audit is not sustainable specially in a case where the duty has been paid, however, to a wrong Excise Code. I draw my support from Devang Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [2016 (41....