9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.2005 i.e. before levy of Service Tax on GTA. Rs. 5,89,950/- 2. Service Tax paid on Coal transported through wagon loading whereas coal transported though wagon loading does not attract Service Tax. Rs. 12,67,866/- 3. Excess payment of Service Tax 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 Rs. 2,72,844/- Total Rs.21,30,660/- On scrutiny of refund claim, the Revenue noticed that the assessee have not submitted original documents/bills indicating that the services are provided prior to levy of Service Tax and that the Service Tax had been paid on it. On receipt of discrepancy memo dated 3.4.2007, the assessee informed that the original documents were bound along with other vouchers and that it was a difficult task to carry all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l book. From the bare reading of detailed chart, it is evident that the details of voucher no. and date, name of service provider, Agreement/Work Order No., description of work, bill no., claim period and gross amount and taxable amount as well as tax have been reflected. 2.2 So far refund of Rs. 12,67,8655/- is concerned, the same was in respect of services of loading and unloading of coal at the railway siding. It was contended that said service was given by the service provider/contractor and the appellant is a receiver of service, they are not liable to pay Service Tax, whereas the Service Tax is paid by mistake for the period 1.1.2005 to 31.10.2006 is refundable. In support, the appellant had filed details chart, copy of which is avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant that payment in respect of the differential amount, it is observed in the Order-in-Original that the appellant failed to establish the fact that the payment was made under the protest. 2.5 Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to reject the appeal upholding the order of rejection observing that as per procedure the appellant is required to provide original documents of refund claim before the sanctioning authority and the same has not been done by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The Counsel for the appellant urges that they have never refused to produce the document before the authorities. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
