M\/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Trichy
Service Tax
2018 (1) TMI 1055 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 18-1-2018
ST\/41516\/2016 – Final Order No. 40138\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical )
\nShri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nBrief facts are that the appellants applied online for new registration of their newly formed Finance Unit (Township Administration Office) for payment of service tax on salary paid to CISF and other services from April 2013 onwards. However, while doing so, they inadvertently mentioned themselves as non-assessee and selected Service Tax Commissionerate, Chennai instead of LTU, Chennai respectively in the software. Consequently, the registration No.xxxxx36 was generated under the jurisdictional of Service <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ervice tax was made by them under a wrong assessee code and that the same has to be adjusted to the correct registration number. After adjudication, the Commissioner declined the request of the appellant and confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,92,55,858\/- along with interest. No penalty was imposed. Aggrieved, the appellants are now before this Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n tance of wrong assessee code \/ registration number. He submitted that the appellant could have applied for refund and then pay the service tax along with interest. Since there is no provision under the law, for adjustment of such error, while remitting the service tax, the request of the appellant to make adjustment cannot be entertained. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Plastichemix Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara – 2016 (44) STR 254 and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Asiatic Colourr Chem Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2017 (354) ELT 354 (Guj.). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n entries has to be effected by the PAO, as per Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts, New Delhi s letter No. Coord\/2(1)\/76\/e-PAO (Chennai)\/13-14\/159, dated 4-9-2013 and the Civil Accounts Manual of the PAO, read with letter Chord\/2(8)\/Cex\/13-14\/224, dated 1-5-2014, even for previous years. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ration number to which the wrong remittances have been made by e-payment to transfer the amount from their registration number, certified by the concerned Range Officer of Central Excise\/Service Tax that the said amount has not been utilized or paid by him and does not surface in his ledger (Books of accounts) and attach with the representation besides the documents enumerated against Case I above.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, TrichyService Tax2018 (1) TMI 1055 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 18-1-2018ST\/41516\/2016 – Final Order No. 40138\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Advocate for the Appellant … Continue reading “M\/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Trichy”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10079","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran submitted that the show cause notice has been issued alleging short-payment of service. That there is no short-payment of service tax and the payment has been made by the assessee without delay and there is only a procedural lapse mentioning the correct assessee code in the challans. That this was only a procedural lapse which can be condoned. That there is no dispute as to the total quantum of service tax payable by the appellant for the period 1.4.2013 to 30.9.2013 and also in respect of the fact that the said amount has been paid into the Government treasury. The impugn<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. The appellant has paid the service tax under registration No.xxxxx36 instead of registration No.xxxxx35. The adjudicating authority has rejected the request of the appellant to condone the procedural lapse and for adjustment of the payment made. The ground on which such request was denied is that there is no provi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n The instances, resulting in remittances against wrong Head of accounts\/STC numbers\/C. Ex. Registration number, are cited below : –
\n 1. Service Tax has been paid in the wrong accounting code of a difference service than which is rendered, where the mistake has occurred under same registration number.
\n 2. Service Tax has been paid against incorrect Accounting Minor Heads of Education Cess, interest, penalty Secondary Higher Education Cess and or vice versa. For eg : interest paid under Secondary Higher Education Cess, etc.
\n 3. Service Tax has been paid against the STC number of another assessee\/same assessee s (having multiple registrations) different registration number.
\n 4. Service Tax has been paid<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe said issue was considered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sahara India TV Network (supra) and has referred the Board Circular. The Tribunal had set aside the demand as well as the penalties imposed directing the adjudicating authority to make necessary adjustment. Following the same we are of the view that the impugned order cannot sustain.
\n6. The decision relied by the ld. AR in the case of Plastichemix Industries (supra) has been already considered by the Tribunal in the case of Sahara India TV Network (supra). So also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n