AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 01.10.2000 under the Department of Telecommunications (for short "DOT") itself. The question raised is under the Finance Act, 1994, specifically the levy of interest under Section 75. The appellant herein, a service provider, is liable to tax under the Finance Act, 1994. There is no dispute on such liability and the same has also been paid up by the appellant. 2. The issue raised is on the delay occasioned in making such deposit; the interest leviable, which was levied along with a penalty under the Act. We are not concerned with the penalty, since the Tribunal itself has deleted it. We are, in the present appeal, concerned only with the levy of interest, which has been made on a monthly basis without reference to the actual days of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Annexure AI (Annexure I). We found that even when the delay was only of days, the rate was applied for the entire month. The learned Standing Counsel, hence, requested for sometime to get instructions from the Department. 6. Today, Sri. Nellimoottil, is present with Sri.P.A.Thomas, Superintendent of Central Excise & Customs, who has been specifically deputed by the Chief Commissioner to assist the Standing Counsel. In fact the officer has placed before us a Circular issued by the Chandigarh Commissionerate, based on which the interest levy was made in the impugned order. Before we look into the same, we have to look at the provision as it existed in the various periods for which the levy was made, which is the subject matter of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 68 or rules made thereunder, who fails to credit the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central Government within the period prescribed, shall pay simple interest {at the rate of one and on e -half per cent for every month or part of the month} by which such crediting of the tax or any part thereof is delayed." 9. By Finance Act, 2001, the bracketed portion stood amended as "at the rate of twenty-four per cent per annum for the period". Again, by amendment made by Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 16.08.2002, the rate of interest stood changed as "fifteen per cent per annum". This remained upto 09.09.2004, which covers the period we are concerned with. 10. What has to be noticed is that from 1998 onwards, the rate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment is due on 15th (as per the earlier provision)/or 25th of the month (as per new provision) and the payment is made on 1st of the next month, then there is delay of 16/17 days or 6/7 days respectively as the case may be, in making payment of Service Tax to the Government. In such cases, interest should not be charged for two months, rather, it is clarified that the period of one month should be considered with reference of 16th/26th of the month to the 15th/25th of the next month and the interest should be charged for one month only." 13. The aforesaid Circular was in the context of the officers levying interest for two months, when the number of days delayed spread over more than one month. That is, when the payment had to be made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed within time and there could be no levy under Section 75 to that portion. 15. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend on the third question that when the appellant was constituted into a company; having been dissociated from the DOT, the appellant was directed to make remittance of service tax to the DOT from which, book adjustments were made to the Central Excise Department. The learned Counsel also points out the prescription in the Statute; specifically in Section 75, being remittance to the Government account. If as submitted by the assessee, book adjustments were made from the DOT to the Department of Central Excise, prior to the remittances made directly by challans, the amounts paid by the appellant to the ....