DDB Mudra Max P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST Belapur, Navi Mumbai
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1384 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 12-9-2018
ST\/87167\/2018 – A\/88206\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri Vinod Awtani, C.A.
\nFor the Respondent : Shri A.S. Parabh, Asst. Commr (AR)
\nORDER
\nPER: S.K. MOHANTY
\nHeard both sides and perused the case records.
\n2. In this case, the appellant had adjusted an amount of Rs. 5,67,000\/- and Rs. 15,00,000\/- in the months of December, 2013 and March, 2014. The adjustment was on account of excess service tax paid in the months of March and April 2011.
\nThe department had acknowledged the excess payment of service tax during the <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ral Clauses Act, 1897, singular also means plural and hence “month” should be interpreted as “months”. Therefore, it was submitted that the service tax adjustment made in the month December 2014, in respect of excess service tax paid in the months of March and April 2011 is proper and justified, as per the provisions of Rule 6(4A) Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant further contended that identical case has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Schwing Stetter (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai – 2016 (45) STR 101 (Tri.Che). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" DDB Mudra Max P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST Belapur, Navi MumbaiService Tax2019 (1) TMI 1384 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 12-9-2018ST\/87167\/2018 – A\/88206\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Vinod Awtani, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri A.S. Parabh, Asst. Commr (AR) ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Heard … Continue reading “DDB Mudra Max P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST Belapur, Navi Mumbai”<\/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-16367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16367","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=16367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. On perusal of the Co-ordinate bench decision relied upon by the appellant, I find that interpreting the provisions of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Tribu<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n