TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. 2. Heard Shri Raghav Rajeev, ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Smt. G. Krupa, Ld. Departmental Representative; perused the orders of lower authorities and we have also considered the decisions relied upon by both the sides during the course of arguments. Upon considering the rival contentions, the only issue that arises for our consideration is, 'whether the Appellant was correct in utilizing the advance tax paid during 2012-13, and 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 for adjustments of their tax liability?'. 3. Facts are not in dispute; The Appellant who is engaged in the manufacture of Catalysts and Catalysts convertor, Metal convertors under Chapter Heading 85 and Ceramic catalysts under Chapter Heading 38 of Central Excise Tariff Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Adjudicating Authority i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III confirmed the proposals as made in the SCN dt. 29.02.2016 vide Order-in-Original No.01/2017-ST dt. 09.02.2017 which has been assailed by Appellant in Appeal No.ST/41001/2017. 5. Similarly, for the subsequent period, i.e. from October 2015 to June 2017, a Statement of Demand No.04/2017 dated 18.09.2017 was issued to the Appellant. Upon adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands with applicable interest and imposed penalty vide Order-in-Original No.02/2018-ST dated 11.04.2018. Aggrieved by this Order-in-Original, the Appellant filed its first Appeal before the First Appellate Authority who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 507/2018 (CTA-I) dated 25.10.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty, but however even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that Rule 6 (4A) ibid applies, then this Bench in South India Aluminium Company (supra) has held that the adjustment could be made not only in subsequent month / quarter but also in subsequent months / quarters. He would also contend that going by the findings in the impugned orders that the Appellant had wrongly adjusted excess service tax paid under Rule 6 (4A) ibid then adjustment should be allowed subject to fulfilment of conditions in Rule 6 (4B) ibid. 7. Per contra, Smt. G. Krupa, Ld. Departmental Representative defending the impugned orders, seriously contended that the Appellant has chosen to adjust the advance tax paid in succeeding months / quarters which is against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be paid towards service tax liability for a month or quarter, as the case may be, the assessee may adjust such excess amount paid by him against his service tax liability for the succeeding month or quarter, as the case may be." 6. From the above provision, it can be seen that the word 'immediate' is absent in the Rule. The Rule says that the assessee can adjust the excess amount paid by him against the service tax liability for the succeeding month or quarter, as the case may be. The department is of the view that since the word 'quarter' is used after the word 'month', the only meaning that can be inferred from the Rule is that adjustment of excess amount paid can be made only in the immediate succeeding month or quarter. Needles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....service tax paid. So also when the excess paid is higher than the service tax liability in the immediate succeeding month or quarter, the Rule does not say that only part of the excess can be adjusted towards the immediate succeeding month or quarter and that assessee has to file refund for the balance excess amount. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee then has to avail the option of refund. It can be reasonably understood that the Rule intends an assessee to adjust excess payment to his liability that is accrued later. This is to avoid hassles of a refund claim. When there is already excess amount in the hands of the Revenue, while making such adjustment, there is no revenue loss. In fact, the Revenue is enriched by the interest on the ....