Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Sahara India Tv Network vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 December, 2005
ORDER T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (STC) Central Excise, Mumai-V has confirmed the demand of Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 1,43,918/- (Rupees One Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighteen only) for the period April, 2001 to September, 2002 and further penalty of Rs. 48,135/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five only)(Rs. 46,135/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five only) under Section 75 and Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 2004. The appellants had filed the Service tax returns for the half year ending Sept. 2001 and March 2002 on 2nd Nov. 2001 and 13th May 2002 respectively and paid Service Tax. The Service Tax payable for the month of September, 2001 was Rs. 27,756/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Six only) whereas the Service Tax was paid Rs. 1,35,798/- (Rupees One Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Eight only) and Service Tax payable for the month of July, 2001 was Rs. 6,936/- (Rupees Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Six only) whereas the Service Tax was paid Rs. 46,790/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety only) which was in excess. Therefore, under sub-rule 3 of Service Tax Rules, the appellants have adjusted the excess amount towards future liability of the Service Tax. This was not credited by the Department. They have issued Show-Cause Notice proposing the amount for the relevant period which culminated into these proceedings.
3. The appellants had also filed the refund claim separately and the same has been rejected by the Department. The Commissioner (A) confirmed the Order-in-Original No. 407/ST/74/2004, dated 4.10.2004. The appellants seeks stay of the impugned order and pray for waiver of pre-deposit. The issue which arises in this appeal is about applicability of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of the Service Tax for adjustment of the amount paid in excels for future liability and alternatively sanction the refund claim. As seen from the record, the appellants have been denied in both ways. Considering that there exists the view there prima facie case in favour of the appellants. Pre-deposit is waived and stay is also granted pending disposal of the appeal and list the appeal for regular hearing in its turn. Stay application is disposed of accordingly.
(Pronounced in Court)