9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - [Order]. - This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 22-11- 2004 wherein the appellate authority allowed the refund claim of the respondent. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent is a proprietorship concern and has been providing Hire-Purchase Services. He obtained service tax registration and under the mistaken impression that he re quires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent though may be under the mistaken identity but he is aware that it is service tax which has been deposited by him with the Government. He submits that the respondent did not produce any proof or evidence regarding non-collection of this amount from their customers. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Ltd. v. ACCE, Trichy, as reperted at 2001 (134) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-Purchase Services. It is also not hi dispute that the respondents got registered for payment of service tax under the banking and financial services and has paid service tax for the period July, 2001 to June, 2002. The Board vide its letter dated 9-7-2001 at Para 11.1 has clarified that no service tax is applicable on proprietorship firms rendering hire-purchase activities. In view of this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.)]. Even in that eventuality it has to be established the incidence of duty has not been passed on to others." In the case before me the respondent has produced before the authorities the contract of hire purchase entered by them with their customers. From the mere perusal of the said contract it seems that there is no element in this contract which indicates that the respondent has passed on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
