9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of the articles of glass fiber. Appellant paid service tax for availing the service of goods transporter. On realising the mistake the appellant filed a refund claim which was received by the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hexacom (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 357 to submit that refund is maintainable, if any, amount is collected erroneously as representing service tax which is not in force. 5. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly held that the burden of duty has been passed on to the customer. The adjudicating authority g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exacom (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 357 held that if any amounts are collected erroneously as representing service tax, which is not in force, in such case there is no bar to the return of such amounts. In this situation, the refund claim is maintainable for the amount deposited by the appellant representing service tax. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
