9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so on the ground of unjust enrichment. HELD THAT:- There is no charge in the show cause notice for denial of refund on this ground. Secondly, even if Rule 6(1A) is referred, it is found that appellant have clearly made the service tax payment in respect of an invoice of Bombardier Transportation Sweden. Therefore, it is an actual payment of service tax which falls under Rule 6(2) and does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el, Superintendent (AR) ORDER RAMESH NAIR The Brief facts of the case are that the appellant have paid the service tax of Rs 1,14,68,627 on reverse charge mechanism in respect of service received from their parent company Bombardier Transportation Sweden under the invoice No FMN10000073 dated 17.12.10. The appellant instead of actual service tax payable of Rs 10,29,217.20/-, they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vance therefore, it is not refundable in terms of Rule 6(1A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 the said allegation not raised in the Show cause notice therefore, on this ground rejection of refund claim is beyond the scope of SCN. He further submits that their payment of service tax is actual payment in relation to the particular invoice and not as advance payment therefore, their payment of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and (ii) They had not established that the incidence of service tax was not passed on. As regard the first ground we find that first of all there is no charge in the show cause notice for denial of refund on this ground. Secondly, even if Rule 6(1A) is referred, we find that appellant have clearly made the service tax payment in respect of an invoice of Bombardier Transportation Sweden. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
