9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case the question of refunding the value of taxable service and service tax thereon to any person (service recipient) did not arise. Appellant could not produce any documentary evidence to show that the value of taxable service and service tax thereon had been refunded to any recipient of its taxable service inasmuch as the excess paid service tax did not correspond to any service provided or agreed to be provided by the appellant to any service recipient. First appellant authority has observed that appellant had not produced evidence related to the occurrences of said excess payments before the lower authorities otherwise the issue could have been looked into the entirely of prevailing Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules 1994. The matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onth of October, 2006 in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. (d) The appellant s case was fully covered by the following case laws: (i) Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot - [2012 (27) STR 372 (Tri. Ahmd.)]; (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. SRC Projects Ltd - [2010 (20) STR 687 (Tri. Chennai)]; and (iii) Nirma Architects Valuers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - [2006 (1) STR 305 (Tri. Del)]. 3. On the other hand Shri S.K. Mall, Ld. AR, reiterating the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal, contended on behalf of the Revenue that the appellant could not adjust the excess paid service tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f taxable service and the service tax thereon to the person from whom it was received. In the present case the reason for excess payment of service tax was mistake in computing service tax liability for the period April 2006 to September 2006, which is not disputed by the Revenue. There is no evidence on record that the appellant had received/ retained any amount in excess of the value declared by it in its Half Yearly Return for the period ending 30.09.2006. Therefore, in this case the question of refunding the value of taxable service and service tax thereon to any person (service recipient) did not arise. Appellant could not produce any documentary evidence to show that the value of taxable service and service tax thereon had been ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
