While depositing service tax,
there may be error by assessee/applicant to quote wrong service tax registration
number. In such case, department do not receive service tax in proper
service tax registration number and also receive the same amount in wrong
registration number. Department raise
demand in the name of applicant after submitting service tax return. It all happened due to technical error which can
be rectified by department’s end itself.
CESTAT, Mumbai Bench
Tej Control Systems
(P.) Ltd.
v.
Commissioner of
Central Excise, Thane
ORDER NO.
S/108/2012/SMB/C-IV
A/44/2012/SMB/C-IV
APPLICATION NO.
E/S/2104/2010
APPEAL NO.
E/1946/2010
MARCH 22, 2012
ORDER
1. The appeal and stay
application are directed against order-in-appeal No.SB(113)/113 /Th-I/2010
dated 09/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai
Zone-I.
2. The facts arising for
consideration in this are as follows:-
2.1 The appellant, M/s. Tej
Control Systems Pvt. Ltd. Thane, are manufacturers of goods falling under
chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have two registrations,
one under the Central Excise Act and other under the Finance Act, 1994 for the
purpose of service tax. The appellant had availed Cenvat credit of service tax
on CHA services. The department was of the view that they are not entitled for
the same. The appellant accordingly reversed the credit taken along with
interest thereon and also paid 25% of the amount as penalty, even before
passing of the adjudication order. Subsequently, an adjudication order was
passed vide order dated 31/08/2009 wherein the above demands were confirmed and
the amount paid by the appellant was appropriated. However, while making the
above payments, the appellant had quoted the service tax registration number in
the concerned challans instead of the excise registration number. Therefore,
the appellant was directed to pay the amount once again. The appellant went in
appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order dismissed
their appeal. Hence, the appellants are before me.
3. The Ld. Advocate for the
appellant submits that there is no dispute about the fact that they made the
payments even before the issuance of the adjudication order. The only mistake
committed by them was that instead of quoting excise registration number they
had quoted service tax registration number in the payment challans. There is no
dispute of the fact that the Government has received money whatever is due from
them. Therefore, the question of asking them to pay the amount again is not
sustainable in law.
4. The Ld. AR appearing for
Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
5. I have carefully considered
the rival submissions.
6. After hearing both sides, I am
of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage.
Accordingly, after granting stay against recovery of dues adjudged, I take up
the appeal for consideration and disposal.
7. The issue lies in a narrow
compass. The issue is by quoting the service tax registration number in the
payment challan, has the appellant committed a irreparable mistake or has the
department not received the amount which they demanded. Inasmuch as the
department has received the amount due from the appellant quoting of wrong registration
number in the concerned challans is only a technical error which can be
rectified at the department’s end itself. Such demand by the department is
perverse and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.