9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt facts of the case in brief are that the appellants were engaged in production of TV serial/programme for various TV channels. During the period 18-6-2003 to 31-3-2004 the appellant wrongly paid the service tax under the category of "Video Production Agency" service. Subsequently, they filed the refund claim. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the refund claim on merit as well as on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the production and selling of TV serial to TV channels were not chargeable to service tax during the material period and modified the adjudication order to that extent. However, he has rejected the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. Learned advocate on beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that it is evident from the invoices that the appellant charged service tax separately. The contention of the appellant that the alleged invoices indicate the composite price and therefore the charging of service tax separately in the invoice bearing no consequence. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate. We find that section 12A of Chapter II-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable by virtue of section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Chapter II-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides provision for "indicating amount of duty in the price of goods, etc., for purpose of refund and crediting certain amounts to the Fund". Section 12A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides every person who is liable to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Hexacom (I) Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 9 STT 121 (Delhi-CESTAT). It is seen that the refund was claimed by the customers and in the present case, the refund was claimed by the service provider and therefore, this case is not applicable herein. In the case of CCE v. M. A. Financial Services (P.) Ltd. [2006] 3 STT 392 (Kol.-CESTAT), service tax was found to have been collected twice on same transaction. in the case of UP Twiga Fiberglass Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 8 STT 238 (Delhi-CEGAT), on verification from their record, it was found that the burden was not passed on the transporter and it was borne by the appellant. In the present case the appellant have not produced any evidence to show tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
