2019 (2) TMI 683 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Adjustment of excess paid service tax against future liability – Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 – Held that:- There are no merits in the contention of the learned C.A. for the appellant on going through the relevant credit note No.007/2014-15 dated 23.9.2014, invoice No.009/2013-14 dated 29.3.2014 and the agreements between the appellant the service recipient – To provide an opportunity to the appellant, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority so as to enable them to place all the relevant documents in support of their claim that excess service tax was paid by them during the relevant period and the adjustment was admissible to them since not against written off bad debts.
–
Appeal allowed by way of remand. – APPEAL Nos. ST/88297, 88306/2018 – A/85230-85231/2019 – Dated:- 29-1-2019 – Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Shri Nilesh Jhaveri, C.A., for appellant Shri S.B. Mane, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent O
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n turn, rejected their appeals. 3. At the outset, the learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submits that during the relevant period, i.e. from March 2012 to March 2014, there was a reduction in the value of taxable services by the recipient of service, i.e. NSICL, involving a total tax amount of ₹ 9,11,037/-, which was discharged after raising the invoices. It is his contention that after submitting the report along with the invoices, due to certain reason, the total invoice amount was revised and the recipient of service, i.e. NSICL, scored out the entire amount against provisions of service to few clients and while paying the total amount, reduced the value of such scored out amount as reflected in the invoice. In support, he has placed invoice No.0127/2013-14 dated 11.3.2014. It is his contention that being a Government undertaking, NSICL separately does not issue any direction to submit revised invoices. Even though they have issued credit notes against invoice No.01
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ow analysed the reduction in invoice value but in absence of evidences, did not accept the contention of the appellant. He has no objection in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. I find that the appellant has undisputedly provided services under the taxable category of credit rating agency service to NSICL. The dispute centres around the fact that even though they have paid excess service tax on the taxable value at the time of issuing invoices, which later was reduced by NSICL and they received the reduced value, therefore, the service tax excess paid whether admissible to be adjusted against their future liability in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The contention of the learned C.A. is that the relevant agreement, corresponding credit notes and the ledger account could not be placed before the adjudicating authority resulting into confirmation of the demands. I find merit in the contention of th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =