COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SRC PROJECTS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADJUSTMENT of excess payment of service tax paid for services rendered to SEZ towards subsequent payment of service tax for the period from October 2005 to March 2006 is objected to by the department in this appeal on the ground that adjustment is provided for only under Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules and the provisions of the above Rule are not applicable in the present case as the Assessees had, admittedly, rendered service to the SEZ (adjustment under the rule cited above is permissible only when no service has been rendered either wholly or partially).

(2.) I have heard both sides. I find that in a series of decisions including two cases relied upon by the lower appellate authority namely Nirma Architects & Valuers v. CCE, Ghaziabad : 2006 (1) S.T.R. 305 and Prachar Communications Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai : 2006 (2) S.T.R. 492, adjustment carried out by the Assessees has been accepted by the Tribunal. Even if the Revenue is correct in their contention that a strict interpretation of the rule would disentitle the Assessees to make any adjustment suo motu, the Tribunal has consistently held that liberal view of the rule or liberal interpretation of the rule has to be taken/made.