Page 121 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] SAI VIDEO BROADCAST PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CGST, MUMBAI EAST 39
given by the said Director, such deposit made by appellant to be treated as
having been made in his own Registration No. especially in the absence of any
dispute to the fact of payment of Service Tax, demand and imposition of pen-
alty not sustainable - Sections 73 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 5]
Appeal allowed
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 58/7/2003-S.T., dated 20-5-2003 .................................................................. [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Neerav R. Mainkar, Advocate, for the Appel-
lant.
Shri Dharmendra Singh, Supdt. (AR), for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. The appel-
lant is engaged in providing video tape production service and is duly registered
with the Service Tax department. As a result of Audit, it was found that the ap-
pellant deposited Service Tax amounting to Rs. 17,76,434/- for the period from
July, 2013 to October, 2013 by mentioning the wrong Service Tax Registration
No.
2. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them calling upon
as to why the said payment should not be treated as non-payment of tax as the
same stand deposited under a wrong Service Tax Registration No. and as to why
further demand should not be made against them along with interest. During the
course of adjudication, the appellant took stand that a wrong Registration No.
relates to one of the Directors of the Company, who is running his separate pro-
prietorship business. They submitted that it was an inadvertent mistake on the
part of assessee and accordingly prayed for rectifying the mistake.
3. The matter was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner, who re-
ferred to the Board’s Circular No. 58/7/2003, dated 20-5-2003 laying down the
procedure in case of wrong use of Registration No. and observed that as the as-
sessee has obtained the no objection certificate for taking credit of the said
amount of Rs. 7,76,434/- wrongly paid, from the person, in whose code the pay-
ment has been made, there is no need to further confirm the demand. According-
ly, he imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in terms of Section 77 of the Finance Act,
1994 and vacated the show cause notice.
4. The said order was appealed against by the Revenue before Com-
missioner (Appeals). The appellate authority observed that the circular was clari-
fying the matter in respect of tax paid in wrong accounting head only and not tax
paid in name of other registrant. As such, he observed that inasmuch as the Ser-
vice Tax was paid under wrong Registration No., it has to be taken as no tax was
paid. He accordingly reversed the order of the original adjudicating authority.
Hence, the present appeal.
5. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Neerav R.
Mainkar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Dharmendra Singh, Supdt. Au-
thorised Representative, for the respondent. I find that there is no doubt about
the fact that the appellant had deposited the Service Tax. However, instead of
depositing the same in their own Registration No., the same was, by mistake,
deposited in the Registration No. of one of the Directors, obtained by him for his
own Proprietary Concern. Admittedly, the said Director has given No Objection
Certificate and as such the deposit made by the appellant has to be treated as

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  121