TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The facts of the case in brief are that during the course of audit, it appeared to the officers of the department that during the quarters October- 2007 to December, 2007 and January-2008 to March-2008 the appellant had adjusted excess paid service tax amounting to Rs. 6,06,031/-. It also appeared to the officers that the appellant had failed to comply with condition no. (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 in as much as the amount adjusted by appellant exceeded the monetary limit of one lakh rupees per month / quarter and further the appellant had failed to intimate the details and reasons of such adjustment to the Jurisdictional Superintendent within a period of 15 days from the date of adjustment. Show Cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsultant for the appellant submitted that lower authorities have not disputed the fact that the appellant had paid excess amount of service tax in the earlier period, but for the procedural lapses narrated in the show cause notice. Hence, the department cannot deny the adjustment on the ground of procedural lapses once there is no dispute about excess payment of service tax by the appellant. 2.1. The learned consultant for the appellant has also submitted that the demand is time barred in as much as there can be no malafied intention on the part of appellant when there is no dispute over the fact that there was excess payment of service tax by appellant which they sought to adjust. Thus, show cause notice issued in December, 2012 for re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notification, (ii) excess amount paid by an assessee registered under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, on account of delayed receipt of details of payments towards taxable services may be adjusted without monetary limit (iii) in cases other than specified in clause (ii) above, the excess amount paid may be adjusted with a monetary limit of rupees fifty thousand for a relevant month or quarter, as the case may be, (iv) the details and reasons for such adjustment shall be intimated to the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise within a period of fifteen days from the date of such adjustment." 3.1 The learned AR further argued that Condition no. (ii) is applicable to such notice having centralized registration. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial period and therefore, appellant is justified to make adjustments in accordance with relevant circular letters and rules. I also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the demand of the department is time barred because, it cannot be said that the appellant paid excess amount of service tax with malafied intention or he made adjustments with malafied intention. The show cause notice issued in December, 2012 for the recovery of excess amount of service tax adjusted by appellant during the quarters October, 2007 to December, 2007 and January, 2008 to March, 2008 is in my opinion time barred and extended period cannot be claimed by the department on the ground of suppression of facts with intention to evade tax. 4.2 In thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive year is applicable only when something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of manufacturer is proved. Conscious or deliberate withholding of information by manufacturer is necessary to invoke larger period of limitation of five years. If department had full knowledge or manufacturer had reasonable belief that he is not required to give a particular information then extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and six months limitation is applicable in view of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4.5 In the above mentioned decided case, it has also been held that where value of clearances of other goods was not indicated in declaration filed for claiming exemption for specified goods and unit was visited by....