9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t include service tax is not explained and does not appear to be logical - The burden of proving that the benefit of the service tax liability has not been passed on is on the appellants and under these circumstances the certificate of Chartered Accountant is not based on fats and from the documents – claim of refund rejected. - ST/29/2009 - A/550/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 16-3-2009 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate, for the Appellant. Dr. Manoj Kumar Rajak, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order].- The appeal has been filed against the rejection of the refund claim filed by the appellants. 2. The learned advocate, Shri S.J. Vyas, submits that the refund claim has been rejected on two grounds. The refund cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he day on which payment is made towards the input service and service tax is paid. 3. On the other hand learned D.R., submits that the refund claim in respect of sponsorship service has been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. He submits that the appellant's claim is that in some cases they have refunded the service tax to the customers. It is also claimed by the appellants that in all the invoices except in respect of services provided to foreign clients, service tax was not shown separately. If this is the case, the normal conclusion would be that service tax was collected in respect of all invoices for the services provided to the domestic clients. Therefore as rightly observed by the Lower Authorities, the appellants have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed on is on the appellants and under these circumstances the certificate of Chartered Accountant is not based on fats and from the documents, the only conclusion that emerges is that in respect of domestic clients, appellants had collected the service tax. Therefore the claim for refund of this amount has been rejected correctly and therefore this part of the order is upheld. Coming to the claim for refund of Cenvat credit of service tax taken in March 2007 amount into Rs. 2,23,894/-, the same has been rejected on the ground that Cenvat credit has been taken beyond six months. Admittedly the payments in respect of the bills were made during the period from June 2006 to October 2006 and therefore credit taken in March 2007 has been cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
