2025 (4) TMI 885

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Service Taxes already payable by them. 2. The Learned Advocate submits a reconciliation statement as per the following table. Total Demand as per Show Cause Notice (A) = Rs.63,75,705/- Undisputed Excess Amount Paid by the Appellant = 3,52,31,533 - 2,97,15,259 (B) = Rs.55,16,274/- (to be appropriated towards the demand). Balance amount of demand (C) = (A) - (B) = Rs. 8,59,431/- Incorrect figures of Service tax paid as per the SCN resulting in excess demand (D) = Rs.4,54,073/- (Admitted and undisputed vide Para 3.2 of the Order that Annexure to SCN refers to amount paid in Oct, 07 and Nov, 07 as Rs.29,80,701/- and 52,06,411/- which should be Rs.30,17,820/- and 56,23,365/-) Balanc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on cannot be applied for the past excess payments. She relies on the case law of Commissioner v. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. -2015 (318) ELT 240 (Karnataka), wherein it has been held that amendment by substitution has a retrospective effect. She also relies on the case law of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. CCE 2021 (7) TMI 1351 CSTAT Kolkata and Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. Commissioner-2011 (9) TMI 724 CSTAT Bangalore. In view of these submissions, she prays that the entire amount paid against the confirmed demand should be taken as properly paid and should be appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, she prays that penalties imposed under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, may be set aside and the Appeal may be....