Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Shiv Logistics vs C.C.E. & S.Tax, Rajkot on 28 April, 2017

        

 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Zonal Bench, O-20, NMH Compound
Ahmedabad

Service Tax Appeal No.284 of 2011-SM
			 	 
Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.14/2011/Commr(A)/CMC/ Raj dated 28.1.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Rajkot.

Shiv Logistics						..	Appellant
 
Vs. 

C.C.E. & S.Tax, Rajkot					..    Respondent

Appearance:

Present Shri R.Subramanya, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri A. Mishra, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision: 28.4.2017 Final Order No.10841/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both sides. On the basis of audit objection, the appellant was required to pay service tax of Rs.7,44,887/- after adjustment of excess payment of Rs.7,38,447/- for the quarter ending September 2006. Later, a show cause notice was issued to them alleging that service tax adjusted against the liability being not supported by law; therefore, the excess amount of service tax paid is recoverable from the appellant along with proposal for penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with penalty.

2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Mysore vs. Powercell Battery India Limited  2010 (19) STR 400 (Tri  Bang.) and in the case of Narnolla Securities Pvt. Limited vs. C.S.T., Ranchi  2008 (10) STR 619 (Tri-Kolkata).

3. Ld. A.R. for Revenue reiterates the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

4. I find that the short issue involved in the present case for determination is: whether adjustment of excess service tax paid earlier against their liability is admissible to the appellant for the period in question. I find that the issue is no more res integra and is covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Powercell Battery India Limited and Narnolla Securities Pvt. Limited (supra). In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

(Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial scd/ ST/284/2011-SM 1