9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no specific format has been prescribed for the declaration and it is only the CBEC Circular dated 12.03.2007 which prescribed such kind of endorsement. The findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order that no documents have been supplied by the appellant is not tenable as it has been recorded that the appellants have supplied the documents/worksheets evidencing as to how the refund amount was arrived at - the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable because the appellant has paid the service tax under reverse charge. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/197/2009-SM - 20775/2017 - Dated:- 25-5-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri M.S. Nagaraja, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Mohammed Yusuf, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.12.2004 is being affixed by way of rubber stamp and no endorsement made on the transport bills issued by the GTA and that mere rubber stamp affixed on the bills do not fulfill the condition stipulated under the said notification. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has held that the refund claim was not hit by limitation of time and has agreed that the contention of the appellant that the date of remitting to the Government account was on 07.04.2007 and not 07.03.2007 as has been held by the lower authorities. Hence the claim for refund was filed within the limitation period of one year. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bills and consignment notes issued by the GTA are also valid declaration by the GTA and fulfill the condition under the aforesaid notifications, as the said notification does not prescribe any particular method or procedure or format for making such declaration. He also submitted that the said notification does not require for the GTA to make any declaration in the bills or the consignment note and the declaration by the GTA in the bills/consignment notes were only to facilitate the person liable to pay service tax to satisfy that GTA has fulfilled the required conditions and that service tax is payable on 25% of the freight charges paid. He further submitted that the declaration by the GTA in the form of stamp affixed on the consignment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Service Tax. The summary of the computation has also been filed before the lower authority as could be seen from Annexure-E to the reply to the show-cause notice filed on 12.06.2008. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants have paid the service tax under reverse charge as the person who has paid the freight charges and the person liable to pay service tax and there is no question of passing on the burden of service tax to any other person and in support of this, the appellant has also produced CA certificate dated 11.06.2008 confirming that the excess service tax of ₹ 11,62,015/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand and Fifteen only) paid has not been passed on to any other person. Therefore the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
