9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal arises from the Order-in -Appeal No. 98/2006-ST dated 3-5-2006 by which the Commissioner (Appeals), Cochin has confirmed the Order-in-Original No.194/2005 dated 17-11-2005, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Service Division, Kochi rejecting the refund application filed by the appellants. Show cause notice No. 06/2005 dated 28-2-2005 has been served on the appellants stating that they had filed a refund application dated 1-11-2004 claiming refund of Rs.1,54,800/- on the following grounds :- (i) Double payment of service tax of Rs.1,54,800/- paid on various dated during the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-7-2004. (ii) Their company is the authorized dealer and service provider for M/s ENPIPL (Emerson Network ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the contracted value was paid directly to M/s. ENPIPL as per bills raised by them. The maintenance contract was seen contracted to the assessee and they got 63% of the bill amount. The Service tax amount was stated to have been paid by M/s. ENPIPL on the total amount charged in the bill used to customers. After examining the facts, it was stated that the evidence produced is not sufficient and no explanation has been given for variation of amount paid under the challans to support the claim. It was stated that the assessee did not produce any relevant documents (TR6 challans in original) obtained from M/s. ENPIPL to show that the amount claimed by the assessee was actually paid by M/s. Emerson Network Power (India) Ltd. They were direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The matter could have been rejected only on this ground. However the authorities took a reasoning that there were no double payment as there were two activities for which payment of tax has been made. This is seriously contested by the appellants on the ground that there was only one activity of Annual Maintenance Contract and there was no Business Auxiliary Service. They have now produced all documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. In the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the original authority to re-adjudicate the matter following the principles of 'Natural Justice' within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. The appellants to produce all documentary evidence to substantiate their claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
