2024 (5) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....providing taxable services of processing iron and steel on job work basis to M/s. Tata Steel Limited and were registered with erstwhile Service Tax Commissionerate under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). On account of increased packing cost, the appellants raised three supplementary invoices and paid Service Tax and Cess as detailed below which were reflected in the ST-3 returns filed on 25.04.2016 and 25.10.2016 respectively. S. No. Date Bill No. Invoice Amount Service Tax Swach Bharat Cess ( SBC) Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) Total 1 31.03.2016 CHSSC/012 3,26,28,200/- 45,67,948/- 1,63,141/- -- 4731089 2 30.06.2016 CHSSC/007 31,48,618/- 4,40,807/- 15,743/- 15,743 472293 3 30.09.2016 CHSSC/014 46,83,790/- 6,55,731/- 23,419/- 23,419/- 702569     TOTAL 4,04,670,608/- 56,64,486/- 2,02,303/- 39,612/- 59,05,951/- 2.2 Meanwhile, their customer Viz. M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. rejected the supplementary invoices raised on account of increased packing cost as not acceptable. After negotiations, the Appellants revised their claims and submitted a revised Supplementary invoice No. CSSC/PROC/009 dated 26.06.2017 for Rs.1,05,42,205 on whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....payment of Service Tax and therefore, it was alleged that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Section 68 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 making them liable for payment of Service Tax of Rs.11,35,700/-. 2.7 A Show Cause Notice No. 08/2019 dated 10.10.2019 was issued to the Appellant seeking to demand and recover an amount of Rs.11,35,700/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 besides proposing to levy interest under Section 75 and to impose penalty under Section 76 of the Act ibid. 2.8 After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 22.03.2021 confirmed the demand of Service tax proposed in the Show Cause Notice along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,13,570/- under Section 76 of the Act ibid. 3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Authority who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 55/2022 dated 28.10.2022 rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant and upheld the order dated 22.03.2021 of the Original Adjudicating Authority. 4. Hence the present appeal by the Appellant before this forum. 5. The Grounds of Appeal filed by the Appellant averred that:- (i) The SCN No. 08/2019 dated 10.10....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appellant providing the Chartered Accountant Certificate to prove rejection, the same was not considered. (iii) It was contended that the impugned order has mis-interpreted the law, ignores arguments of time bar and is solely revenue focussed, especially when the order states : "6. A perusal of the above provisions will indicate that the bar stated in sub-rule 4(B) is not attracted in the case of the appellant and they can adjust it for payment of service tax in subsequent month or quarter as provided in sub-rule 4(A) 7. However, from the factual matric, the following is clear: (i) The Appellant had taken credit of rs.59.05,952/- being the excess tax paid which is admissible under Rule 6(4A) of STR. (ii) The Appellant utilised Rs.11,35,700/- out of the credit to discharge Service Tax in the following quarter. (iii) The appellant has however filed a refund for the entire excess paid tax of Rs.59,05,952/- which is to be considered in de-novo as directed by the Hon'bel Tribunal " It was pointed out that the above observation is in fact erroneous as the Hon'ble Tribunal in its Final Order No. 41276/2019 dated 13.11.2019 has specifically recorded the fact that the Appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecord. 8. The only issue that is to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant is eligible to make adjustment of excess service tax paid against future service tax liability. 9. The facts in this appeal indicate that the appellant has raised 3 supplementary invoices due to increased packing cost on their customer Viz., M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., for whom they are working as a job worker and have paid the service tax including cesses of Rs.59,05,952/-. As M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. has rejected these 3 supplementary invoices and having not paid, the appellant has taken the credit of excess service tax paid. The appellant have filed a refund claim as a matter of abundant precaution. After negotiations, on revising their claim, the appellant has again raised a revised supplementary invoice involving service tax amount of Rs.12,83,399/- + Cesses which was paid adjusting the service tax amount already paid in respect of 3 supplementary invoices earlier raised. Thus, it is to be noted that the appellant has availed credit of the service tax paid on the supplementary invoices and used a part of the amount for paying the service tax in the subsequent period on revised subsequent supplementa....