9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim of Rs. 4,24,763/- has been disallowed by the lower authorities. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants (herein) provided service to their foreign clients and received commission as remuneration for the service rendered to their foreign clients in convertible foreign exchange to the tune of Rs. 46,17,120/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax and therefore he gave the benefit of cum-service tax. Though sanctioned the appellant's refund claim, but the adjudicating authority retained a sum of Rs. 4,24,763/- as the same may be value of the Service Tax recovered by the appellant from their foreign clients as by giving the benefit of cum-service tax. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also confirmed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission received by them. Before the lower authorities, while considering, whether they are liable to pay Service Tax or not, it was the prayer that they are not liable to pay Service Tax but in alternate without prejudice, it was also submitted that it is held that they are liable to pay Service Tax then the amount of service provided be treated as cum-service tax. 6. The ld. DR submits that as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voice raised by the appellant shows that no Service Tax has been collected from their foreign clients, the appellant is entitled for refund of entire Service Tax paid by them under protest. Further, in this case, taxability of the Service Tax has already been decided. I find that it is the alternate plea taken by the appellant before the lower authorities at the time of deciding the issue of taxab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
