TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s: 1.1 M/s Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., the appellant is a State Government company registered with the Service Tax department. During the course of the scrutiny of appellant's record i.e. ST-3 return for the period from October March 2015-16 as well as the challans showing payment of service tax, it was observed that: (i) Challan for November 2015 pertaining to a different registration number was utilized for payment of service tax by the appellant. The challan was generated in favour of Regional Accounts Officer, Rao Sagar but appellant utilized the same resulting into short payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 5,68,451/-:- (ii) The service tax was paid @ 12.36% on Works Contract Service u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt payment of SBC amounting to Rs. 22,244/-, the amount of service tax has already been paid. However, it has wrongly been deposited in the name of appellant's another unit at Rao Sagar instead of it being deposited in appellant's head office at Jabalpur's account. Learned counsel has impressed upon that there is sufficient evidence that Rao Sagar unit of appellant has not utilized the payment through the challan in their service tax returns or the elsewhere. Hence the tax stands duly deposited for the amount in question and the appellant cannot be asked to deposit the same amount of tax twice. 4.1 The demand on three of these issues is also objected as being barred by time. It is submitted the demand has been raised based upon the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Circular No. 58/7/2003-ST dated 20 May 2003 has rightly been differentiated by the adjudicating authority below. As per the said circular the payment made in the wrong accounting code can be adjusted. However, in the present case the payment is made in the name of the different assessee. Hence there is no infirmity in the findings while confirming the demand of service tax of Rs. 5,68,451/-. The short payment of Rs. 42,188/- and of SBC amounting to Rs. 22,344/- is purely on the basis of payment not being made as per the prescribed rate of duty. Hence there is no infirmity in those findings. With respect to the demand of service tax of Rs. 2,10,11,500/-, the findings in the order under challenge have purely been relied upon. Learned Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proposed to be recovered vide show cause notice dated 9.10.2019. The entire period under three of these issues is therefore, beyond the normal period prescribed under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 / 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Both these observations and that there is no other evidence except appellant's own document to prove the alleged act of suppression on part of appellant, we hold that the aforesaid provisions have wrongly been invoked while issuing the show cause notice. Therefore, the show cause notice is held to be barred by them. We draw our support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as CCE Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments - 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC) - Extended period is applicable only when something p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n (j) assignment by the government of the right." 9. It is clear from the perusal of clause (e) of the said section that the said clause intent to levy of service tax only when there is an agreement entered into between the parties in terms of which the promisee agrees to refrain himself from an act or to tolerate a situation or to do an act in return of a consideration from the promiseer. However, in the present case, subject matter of agreement is to supply various goods or services or both these stipulated period. There is no agreement by the other party to not to supply the goods or to not to render the services nor there can be the intention of the other parties to get penalized. 10. Declared service, otherwise, has firs....