9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to be verified, it is for the person who makes such contradictory claim to prove that the original adjudicating authority had failed in his duty. Further, when the service recipient pays the tax, it is quite possible that the service provider may not be registered. Obviously, he cannot provide registration number. Thus, assessee is eligible for refund and on technical ground without showing that payment was not made, refund cannot be rejected. - Decided against the Revenue. - E/1271/2010 - A/2085-2086/2011-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 11-11-2011 - MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, J. Represented by: Shri S.K. Mall, A.R. for the Revenue. Per: Mr.B.S.V. Murthy: The issue involved is eligibility of respondent for refund of Service Tax pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not proper. Secondly, the fact remains that the Assistant Commissioner has not recorded clear finding as to payment of Service Tax by the claimant of the refund. The respondents have submitted that the amount is only Rs.27,085/- which is less than Rs.50,000/- and therefore the appeal may be rejected. Further, they have also stated that Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was in accordance with law and needs no interference. Respondents also took objection to the proforma used for filing appeal. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. As regards format of appeal, I find that this Tribunal had decided in the case of Krishna Export Vs CCE New Delhi 2011 (266) ELT 374 (Tri-Del), that format meant for Excise appeal used in appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax written submissions paid by the service provider and the receiver and then file the appeal. The ground that there is no specific finding of the original adjudicating authority that he has verified the payment of Service Tax, cannot be accepted. Once the 5Assistant Commissioner while sanctioning refund, makes an observation that he has found that all the documents are in order and records a finding that refund is payable, the only conclusion would be that he has to verified whatever is required to be verified and any contrary claim is made, it is for the person who makes such contradictory claim to prove that the original adjudicating authority had failed in his duty. Therefore, I find that there is no merit on this ground also. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
