9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the dismissal of refund claim of the appellants by order in-original. 2.The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that appellants under the impression that they are covered under the provisions of Service Tax got themselves Registered under the category of "Consulting Engineer" and paid the Service Tax for the period from 1st April, 2002 to 31st March, 2003. The appellants were awarde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority. 3.Considered the submissions made by both sides and permitted the records. The appellants appeal against the order-in-original has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the following finding: "I have gone through the case records and party's written and oral submissions. The main pleas of the appellant are that the Assistant Commissioner has ordered the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the contract made available, it cannot be established that the Service Tax amount has not been passed on to the client and therefore, I refrain from interfering with the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. It can be seen, that the appellant are not required to pay the Service Tax during the relevant period is not disputed by lower authorities. The refund claim has been rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xes, that the rates mentioned therein conclusively included the element of excise duty and therefore, the appellant should be held to have passed on the duty burden to their customer. Such conclusion of the duty burden of having been passed on to the customer would have been justified if the cost structure which had entered into the calculation for arriving at the prices mentioned in the schedule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
