TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting to Rs. 38,09,645/- and 41,66,210/- respectively at Mumbai and 1 challan bearing no. 6/2006 - 07 dated 04.08.2006 for Rs. 33,64,895/- at Gandhidham. The appellant have not declared the consulting engineering service in their ST-3 returns for the period October 2005 to March 2066. Accordingly, Show cause notice was issued proposing confirmation of demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,11,82,120/- and for appropriation of Rs. 33,64,895/- paid at Gandhidham penalties under section 76,77 & 78 were also proposed. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs 78,17,225/- and corresponding penalties. Being aggrieved by Order-in-Original the appeal is filed by the appellant. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the amount for demand, confirmed by the adjudicating authority, was already paid by the appellant's head office at Mumbai. Merely, because instead of Anjar unit the service tax paid by their head office at Mumbai, it cannot be said that there is non-payment of service tax. The service tax paid by the head office can be adjusted against the service tax dues against the Anjar Unit. Therefore, no demand exists. He p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral excise duty against wrong accounting head and/or incorrect registration numbers. The Central Board of Excise & Customs vide S.T. Circular No. 58/7/2003 (F.No. 157/2/2003 Cx. A), dated 20-5-2003 has clarified that in such instances the matter should be sorted out with the P.A.O. and the assessee need not be asked to pay Service Tax again. The transfer entries has to be effected by the PAO, as per Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts, New Delhi's letter No. Coord/2(1)/76/e-PAO (Chennai)/13-14/159, dated 4-9-2013 and the Civil Accounts Manual of the PAO, read with letter Chord/2(8)/Cex/13-14/224, dated 1-5- 2014, even for previous years. The instances, resulting in remittances against wrong Head of accounts/STC numbers/C. Ex. Registration number, are cited below : - 1. Service Tax has been paid in the wrong accounting code of a difference service than which is rendered, where the mistake has occurred under same registration number. 2. Service Tax has been paid against incorrect Accounting Minor Heads of Education Cess, interest, penalty Secondary Higher Education Cess and or vice versa. For eg : interest paid under Secondary Higher Education Cess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hatever be the accounting difficulty, when undisputed fact is that the petitioner did pay a certain excise duty, merely mentioning wrong code in the process, cannot result into such harsh consequence of the entire payment not being recognized as valid, incurring further liability of repayment of the basic duty with interest and penalties. Such amount was deposited by the petitioner with the Government of India and it was duly credited in the Government account. It is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner had any other code by the number AADCD7232REM001 and for which there was separate manufacturing activity inviting separate duty liability. Indisputably, thus, the petitioner had singular duty liability for which the actual payment was also made. Under the circumstances, the impugned communication dated 05.05.2015 and notice dated 21.07.2015 are quashed. The respondents are directed to give credit of the duty paid by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 22.15 Lacs by making necessary accounting entries on the basis that the same was paid at the relevant time. If thereafter any sum remains unpaid, it would be open for the Department to take further action in accordance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son for both the registrations (one for NOIDA unit and other for Mumbai unit) is the same. Further, it is evident that it is simply a case of wrong Service Tax registration number having been mentioned in the Service Tax deposit challan. In this case the wrong registration number happens to be of the appellant itself though belonging to its different unit. It could as well have been that by mistake the registration number of a different assessee was mentioned in which case it could not have been asserted that Service Tax was deposited in the account of that assessee whose registration number was wrongly mentioned in the challan (though its name did not appear therein) and not in the account of the person whose name was mentioned in the challan. Such mistakes can happen and it can scarcely be anybody's case that such mistakes are beyond rectification. In this case, the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax in-charge of the appellant's Mumbai unit has categorically mentioned that the impugned amount of service tax (Rs. 25 lakhs) deposited has not been utilised towards paying service tax by the Bombay unit. The CESTAT judgment in the case of Plastichemix Industries (supra) makes a summa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice Tax has been paid against Central Excise Registration number of the assessee instead of Service Tax Code Number or vice versa (major heads-Customs-037, Central Excise-038 and Service Tax-044). 5. Service Tax has been paid against cancelled/surrendered registrations on obtaining centralized registration. In such instances, in order to ensure uniformity and to avoid hardships to the assessees, the following procedure is prescribed to be followed by the assessee and the field formations. Case 1. The assessee should represent (Through Range and Division) to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, describing the mistake occurred/reasons for such errors along with certified copies of the remittance challans, ST-3 Returns for the relevant period and any other document pertains to the issue to establish the genuine mistake and to ratify the error. Case 2. Same as above. Case 3. The assessee should obtain a no objection Certificate from the assessee or any other person against whose registration number to which the wrong remittances have been made by e-payment to transfer the amount from their registration number, certified by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tever be the accounting difficulty, when undisputed fact is that the petitioner did pay a certain excise duty, merely mentioning wrong code in the process, cannot result into such harsh consequence of entire payment not being recognized as valid, incurring further liability of repayment of the basic duty with interest and penalties. Such amount was deposited in the petitioner with the Govt. Of India, and it was duly credited in the Government Account. We also find that Calcutta High Court in the case of Affulent Water Treatment Engineers Private Limited Vs. Union of India - 2016 (41) STR 790 (Cal.) has held similarly and upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. South Asian Petrochem Limited - 2010 (252) ELT A73 (SC). 6. In view of the above, we find that there is no case made out by the department against the appellant. As long as the duty is paid and credited duly to the Govt. Of India account, procedural infractions which are curable in nature will not nullify such payments. Demanding such duty second time is certainly harsh and has no sanction of law, more so along with interest and penalty. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order." 5. Aur....