Case Details: Shree Enterprise vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata (2026) 39 Centax 126 (Tri.-Cal)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shri R. Muralidhar, Member (J)
- Shri A.K. Dugar, Sr. Adv. & M.S. Alam, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri S. Dutta, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant challenged the order confirming service tax liability on the ground that the payment made through a TR-6 challan had not been taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority. It was submitted that the original TR-6 challan bearing the bank’s stamp showed receipt of the amount. In support, the appellant also produced the bank ledger reflecting a debit of the same amount from its account. It was contended that the non-mentioning of the serial number and ECC number was a mistake, as it was not registered at the time of payment. It was further submitted that due to this reason, the amount was not reflected in the revenue records. The department, however, doubted the authenticity of the challan due to the absence of a serial number. It also stated that the amount was not reflected in official records. The matter was placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the original TR-6 challan bearing an acknowledgement of the bank established receipt of the amount. It also noted that the bank ledger showed a debit from the appellant’s account, which supported the claim of payment. The tribunal observed that once the amount was received by the bank for remittance to the Government account, it was to be presumed that the amount had been transferred to the Government account. The tribunal held that the absence of a serial number or ECC details could not be a ground to reject the challan. It concluded that the amount shown in the challan was to be treated as a proper payment and was required to be adjusted against the confirmed dues. Accordingly, the issue was held to be fully settled, with no further recovery by the department and no refund to be claimed by the appellant.
