75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

September 2016

2016 (43) STR 249 (Tri. Ahmd.) L& T Sargent & Lundy Limited vs. CCE & ST, Vadodara

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang; Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Non-intimation to department regarding adjustment of service tax suo motu is a curable defect.

Facts
Excess payment of service tax was adjusted by the Appellants suo motu without intimation to department. The adjustment was denied. It was contended that no intimation was required under Rule 6 (3) of Service tax Rules, 1994. Even if intimation was required, it was a minor procedural defect and therefore, penalties were not warranted. Department argued that penalties shall be imposed on such big industrial group who must be well aware of these laws.

Held
Since there was no short payment of service tax and the defect was not so serious, adjustment was allowed and penalties were set aside.

Note: Readers may note a similar decision in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad [2016-TIOL-1105-CESTAT-HYD] reported in the June 2016 issue of BCAJ. Further please note the decision in the case of ONGC vs. CCE, Cus. & ST., Surat-II [2016 (43) STR 317 (Tri. – Ahmd.)] where on similar facts, the Tribunal had directed the appellant to follow prescribed procedure in future.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2016 (43) STR 234 (Tri. – Chan.) Jindal Water Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak

[2016-TIOL-2223-CESTAT-HYD] M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad-I