ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides and perused the records. The impugned order has demanded the’ amount of about Rs. 5 lakhs from the appellant G.M. Telecom, Chandigarh on the ground that there was delay in payment of Service Tax during the period April, 97 to Dec, 97 in respect of service tax on telephone services rendered by the appellant. The contention of the appellant was that the procedure for collection of telecom charges as well as deposit of service tax remains stipulated in the circular by the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts and the same had been accepted by the Central Board of Excise & Customs also. This was the procedure followed till March’ 99. The contention of the appellant, therefore, is that there was no delay in making payments, as payments had been made in terms of an agreed accounting procedure. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Tribunal’s Final Order No. 4/2003-NB(A) dt.2-6-2003 in Appeal No. ST 25/2002-NB(A) filed by the present appellant.
2. The issue raised in this appeal remains covered by our order dt. 2-6-2003 in the aforesaid earlier appeal. Since the Service Tax was being paid in terms of agreed accounting procedure, the finding of the Commissioner that there was delay in payment of service tax is not sustainable.
3. In view of the position noted above, the appeal is allowed after setting aside the impugned order.
(Order dictated in the open Court.)