9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x was not collected separately during the relevant period from the appellant, the amount received by the service provider is treated as cum-tax amount. The question is not whether the Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules is observed or not. The solution is penalty on the service provider and not rejection of refund claim to the client. Moreover, the appellant has claimed that invoice was issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that liability of service tax has already been passed on to their customers and therefore they are not eligible for refund vide Order-in-Original No. 01/2009-S.T. (Refund) dated 09.3.2009. M/s. Saaj Group did not file any appeal against this order but advised their client to file refund claim. Consequently, the appellant has fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner that the service provider should have observed the procedure prescribed under Rule 4A of the Finance Act, 1994. Learned counsel submits that both the observations are incorrect. As regards payment of service tax, he draws my attention to the certificate of payments issued by Saaj Group and a General Ledger maintained by Saaj Group is the evidence for payment of service tax to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, the amount received by the service provider is treated as cum-tax amount. The question is not whether the Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules is observed or not. The solution is penalty on the service provider and not rejection of refund claim to the client. Moreover, the appellant has claimed that invoice was issued by the service provider only when the construction was over and he produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
