Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
State Bank Of India vs Cce, Chandigarh-I on 12 September, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066 COURT NO. II ST/Stay/55997/2013 in & Service Tax appeal No.55742/2013-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 289/ST/APPL/LDH/10 dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh] Date of Hearing/decision: 12th September, 2013 State Bank of India Appellant Versus CCE, Chandigarh-I Respondent
Present for the Assessee : Shri Sanjay Khamani, C.A. Present for the Revenue : Shri Devendra Siongh, A.R. Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member FINAL ORDER NO. 57626/2013 Per D.N. Panda It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that according to law in force under Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 prior to 1.3.2007, the appellant was entitled to adjust of service tax paid on 31.3.2006 till July, 2006 and subsequent payments of Rs. 88,371/- made on 31.3.2007, Rs. 2,17,633/- on31.3.2008 and Rs. 1,35,306/- on 31.3.209 made during different periods subsequent to 31.3.2007 were also adjustable in accordance with law as that was in force after 1.3.2007. These figures are recorded in Para 6 of appeal memo. But the figures appearing in Para 6 of the impugned order are contrary to the material on record so far as adjustment is concerned. Said para reads as under:
The adjudicating authority in impugned order has held that the appellant during April 06, March 07, March 08 and in March 09 paid excess service tax amounting to Rs. 11,99,469/- and self adjusted the same during Sept 06, April 07, April 08 and in April, 09 against the total permissible limit of Rs. 3.00 lacs (Rs. 50,000/- each for April 06 and March 07 and Rs. 1f lac each for March 08 and March 09). Thus, appellant made excess adjustment of Rs. 8,99,469/- (Rs.1199,469/- - Rs. 3,00,000/-) contrary to the provisions of sub-rule (4B) of Rule 6 of the ST Rules.
2. The bank submits that the following manner of adjustment as depicted in the table below provides a right basis for adjustment. Said table reads as under:
Date of Excess payment Amount of Excess Payment Month of self- adjustment Amount of adjustment 31-03-2006 7,58,213/-
April 2006 1,90,557/-
May 2006 1,66,704/-
June 2006 2,49,028/-
July 2006 1,51,924/-
31-03-2007 88,317/-
April 2007 88,317/-
31-03-2008 2,17,633/-
April 2008 2,17,633/-
31-03-2009 1,35,306/-
April 2009 1,35,306/-
Total 11,99,469/-
11,99,469/-
3. The controversy is whether above manner of adjustment is permissible. That can only be resolved from the figures verifiable from record. In view of above, it is not desirable to keep the matter pending before Tribunal. Accordingly, dispensing with pre-deposit appeal is remanded to learned Adjudicating Authority to redress the grievance of the appellant in the light of above submissions of the appellant testing on the touch stone of law granting fair opportunity of hearing.
4. In the result, both stay application and appeal are disposed off.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK ??
??
??
??
3