Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Src Projects Ltd on 24 June, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.ST/450/09
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.91/2009-(SLM) dated 4.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Salem
Appellant
Versus
SRC Projects Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR Shri G.Natarajan, Advocate For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 24.6.2010 Date of decision : 24.6.2010 Final Order No.____________ Adjustment of excess payment of service tax paid for services rendered to SEZ towards subsequent payment of service tax for the period from October 2005 to March 2006 is objected to by the department in this appeal on the ground that adjustment is provided for only under Rule 6 (3) of the Service Tax Rules and the provisions of the above Rule are not applicable in the present case as the assessees had, admittedly, rendered service to the SEZ (adjustment under the rule cited above is permissible only when no service has been rendered either wholly or partially).
2. I have heard both sides. I find that in a series of decisions including two cases relied upon by the lower appellate authority namely Nirma Architects & Valuers Vs CCE Ghaziabad [2006 (1) STR 305] and Prachar Communications Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai [2006 (2) STR 492], adjustment carried out by the assessees has been accepted by the Tribunal. Even if the Revenue is correct in their contention that a strict interpretation of the rule would disentitle the assessees to make any adjustment suo motu, the Tribunal has consistently held that liberal view of the rule or liberal interpretation of the rule has to be taken/made,
3. Following the ratio of the decisions cited supra, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 4