The hon’ble CESTAT NEW DELHI, in case of 'M/S PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T.CHANDIGARH' held that Self adjustment of excess service tax paid can be done against the service tax liabilities for subsequent period.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/59241/2013-ST[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 115ST-APPEAL-CHD11-2015 dated 14.05.2013 passed by CCE (Appeals) Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s Punjab National Bank ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Chandigarh-II Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Bipin Garg (Advocate) for the Appellant
Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar (DR) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/ Decision. 02.11.2015
Final Order No. 53998 /2015_
Per S K Mohanty:
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Service Tax department for providing the taxable service namely, Banking and Financial Services falling under clause 105(zm) of the Finance Act, 1994. Apart from paying service tax on banking and financial services, the appellant also pays service tax on the services namely service charges/ processing fee/ Documentation charges and commission on Inland letter of guarantee. It pays service tax on gross amount realized towards the services rendered. Subsequently, on case to case basis, the head office of the appellant refunds certain amounts to the recipient of the service based on their credibility. During a particular month, if the value of the service provided was reduced by the amount so refunded, then on the net balance amount, the service tax liability was discharged by the appellant. The modus operandi of adjustment of the tax amount for the disputed period was objected to by the service tax department, which resulted in confirmation of the service tax demand along with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty. Appeal filed by the appellant against the adjudication order was dismissed by the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) vide the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal.
2. The Ld. Advocate, Sh. Bipin Garg appearing for the appellant relies on Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, wherein specific provisions exist for adjustment of the outstanding amount towards subsequent liabilities.
3. Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
5. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by this tribunal is as to whether amount of service tax paid at a higher rate can be adjusted for the service tax liabilities for subsequent period. In this context, I find that Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules clearly provides for such adjustment. The said rule is extracted herein below.
(3) Where an assessee has paid to the credit of Central Government service tax in respect of a taxable service, which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him (calculated on a pro rata basis) against his service tax liability for the subsequent period, if the assessee has refunded the value of taxable service and the service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received.
6. In view of the above statutory provisions, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
3 | Page
ST/59241/2013-ST[SM]
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Service Tax Appeal No. ST/59241/2013-ST[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 115ST-APPEAL-CHD11-2015 dated 14.05.2013 passed by CCE (Appeals) Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s Punjab National Bank ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Chandigarh-II Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Bipin Garg (Advocate) for the Appellant
Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar (DR) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/ Decision. 02.11.2015
Final Order No. 53998 /2015_
Per S K Mohanty:
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Service Tax department for providing the taxable service namely, Banking and Financial Services falling under clause 105(zm) of the Finance Act, 1994. Apart from paying service tax on banking and financial services, the appellant also pays service tax on the services namely service charges/ processing fee/ Documentation charges and commission on Inland letter of guarantee. It pays service tax on gross amount realized towards the services rendered. Subsequently, on case to case basis, the head office of the appellant refunds certain amounts to the recipient of the service based on their credibility. During a particular month, if the value of the service provided was reduced by the amount so refunded, then on the net balance amount, the service tax liability was discharged by the appellant. The modus operandi of adjustment of the tax amount for the disputed period was objected to by the service tax department, which resulted in confirmation of the service tax demand along with interest and imposition of equal amount of penalty. Appeal filed by the appellant against the adjudication order was dismissed by the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) vide the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal.
2. The Ld. Advocate, Sh. Bipin Garg appearing for the appellant relies on Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, wherein specific provisions exist for adjustment of the outstanding amount towards subsequent liabilities.
3. Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
5. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by this tribunal is as to whether amount of service tax paid at a higher rate can be adjusted for the service tax liabilities for subsequent period. In this context, I find that Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules clearly provides for such adjustment. The said rule is extracted herein below.
(3) Where an assessee has paid to the credit of Central Government service tax in respect of a taxable service, which is not so provided by him either wholly or partially for any reason, the assessee may adjust the excess service tax so paid by him (calculated on a pro rata basis) against his service tax liability for the subsequent period, if the assessee has refunded the value of taxable service and the service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received.
6. In view of the above statutory provisions, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
3 | Page
ST/59241/2013-ST[SM]
No comments:
Post a Comment