2014 (8) TMI 924 - CESTAT NEW DELHI


No. - ST/52749/2014
Order No. - Stay Order No.52210/2014
Dated - July 4, 2014

Manmohan Singh, J.

For the Appellant : Shri Archit Aggarwal, CA

For the Respondent : Shri Devinder Singh, DR

PER : Manmohan Singh

Shri Archit Aggarwal, C.A. in M/s Sahara India TV Network appeared for the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.224/NOI/EXCUS/000/APPL/13-14 dated 29.11.2013.

2. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has rejected their appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original No. 74/Addl. Commr/Noida/2012-13 dated 12/03/2013. Issued involved in this appeal is that appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice vide their letter dated 19.10.2012 wherein it was submitted that in challan No. 50048 dated 25.9.2010, the registration number of Mumbai Office i.e. AADCS6118AST001 was indicated inadvertently. There is no dispute that the payment of ₹ 25 lakhs indicated in the challan has been paid and the Government has received the amount of ₹ 25 lakhs as credit to their account. Thus, the government has received the money and the same cannot be demanded second time from the appellant.

3. The appellants vide letter C.No. 20/STRI/N/AUDIT/146/2010 dated 27.6.2011 wrote to the Assistant Commissioner, Division-IV, Service Tax-II, Mumbai for confirmation whether in the return file under registration No. AADCS6118AST001, the account of ₹ 25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs) paid vide challan No. 50048 dated 25.9.2010 has been adjusted or not. The report of Assistant Commissioner, Division-IV, Service Tax-II confirmed the payment of ₹ 25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs) paid vide challan No.50048 dated 25.9.2010 which has not been adjusted against registration No. AADCS6118AST001.

4. It was submitted that their deposit of ₹ 25 lakhs (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) made in Mumbai Division account due to oversight and this amount may be adjusted to Noida Unit. On enquiry I am informed that amount of ₹ 25 lakhs (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only) is still lying in Mumbai Unit account. The appellant have deposited the said amount of Mumbai and requested to make adjustment against the Noida account. It was requested that since both the unit were of the same company, amount already deposited should be adjusted against the Noida Unit.

5. On the other hand Ld. DR Contests their submissions and submits that the deposit in Mumbai Unit cannot be adjusted under the Mumbai office registration against the Noida office liability as it is not legally permissible under the service tax provisions under rule 6 (4) (A) of the service tax rules 1944.

6. It was agreed by both sides that issue is of administrative nature.

7. Ld. Counsel wanted some time to consult the management to sought out the matter. I have gone through the facts on records and all submission made both side and also gone through Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. For consideration of their request to waive condition of pre-deposit, it is observed that ₹ 25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) is already lying in deposit in Mumbai Unit account. Considering totality of facts, prima facie, it is felt that interest of revenue are safe guarded and their stay application is allowed.

8. Learned Counsel also request for early disposal of their appeal as due to peculiars facts, their amount was held in Mumbai Unit and on the other, there was pressure from Noida Unit. Considering above submissions, case is fixed for hearing on 22.8.2014.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)

    Home | About Us | Contact Us