|
Advanced Search Options
Service Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 76 Records
-
2021 (7) TMI 1064
Legality and validity of the show-cause notice - pre-show-cause notice consultation - procedural infraction of impugned SCN - the pre-show-cause notice consultation dated 12.4.2019 calling upon the petitioners at 13.55 hours to remain present before the respondent No.2 at 16.00 hours on the same day - compliance of the Circular dated 10.3.2017 issued by the Board - HELD THAT:- In view of the Circular, it is clear that the Board had made issuance of preshow- cause notice consultation mandatory for the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner prior to the issuance of show-cause notice in cases involving the demands of duty above ₹ 50 lac and that such consultation was to be done by the adjudicating authority with the assessee as an important step towards the trade facilitation and for promoting necessary compliance, as also to reduce the necessity of issuing show-cause notice. Despite such mandatory requirement of the pre-show-cause notice consultation at the instance of the respondent authority, in utter disregard of the said mandate, and without considering the laudable object behind issuing such circular, the respondents issued the impugned pre-show-cause notice consultation dated 12.4.2019 delivering the same to the petitioner assessee at 13.55 hours and calling upon them to remain present before the respondent No.2 at 16.00 hours.
The petitioners having requested for reasonable time for the effective consultation, without considering the said request, the respondent No.2 issued the show-cause notice on the same day i.e. on 12.4.2019. Such a high-handed action on the part of the respondent No.2, not only deserves to be deprecated but to be seriously viewed.
It is required to be noted that as such the demand made in the impugned show-cause notice was within the prescribed time limit. Now, since the said notice is sought to be set aside on the ground that adequate opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners for consultation prior to the issuance of the said notice, the petitioners cannot be permitted to take unfair advantage on the ground that the demand made in the notice had now become time-barred in view of the statutory provisions.
The Court hereby sets aside the impugned notice dated 12.4.2019 (Annexure-D) on the ground that the petitioners were not granted an adequate opportunity for the consultation prior to the issuance of the said notice - Petition allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1026
Classification of services - GTA services or not - appellant is transporter of timber/firewood for forest Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh - cartage Challan equivalent to the consignment note or not - period 2013-14 to 2015-2016 - HELD THAT:- The carting Challan in this case is only for internal control of forest department. Such carting Challan is not equivalent to a consignment note which is issued by the transporter. The consignment note is a negotiable instrument and the transporter is bound to deliver the goods to bonafide holder of title, as mentioned in the consignment note. Such element of ‘consignment note’ are absent in the ‘carting Challan’.
The carting Challan is not equivalent to consignment note. Accordingly, the appellant has not rendered the services as per the definition of GTA under the Finance Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1001
Benefit of abatement of 76% under N/N. 01/2006-S.T., 21/97-S.T., 39/97-S.T., 40/97-S.T., 12/2001-S.T., 8/2003-S.T., 12/2003-S.T., 18/2003-S.T., 19/2003-S.T., 2/2004-S.T., 9/2004-S.T. and 10/2004-S.T. - appellant had availed the Cenvat credit in respect of GTA Service - HELD THAT:- The same issue for previous period in the appellant’s own case came before this Tribunal in M/S NJ DEVANI BUILDERS PVT. LTD VERSUS C.S.T. & S.T. -AHMEDABAD [2019 (6) TMI 213 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and this Tribunal has held that the appellant is entitled for the abatement Exemption Notification subject to reversal of Cenvat Credit.
This very order was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in MESSRS NJ DEVANI BUILDERS PVT. LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (11) TMI 798 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order as well as the Show Cause Notice raising the demand on the ground that the service falls under works contract service and demand was raised under Commercial or industrial construction service.
Considering the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court since the same issue involved in the present case and there is only difference of period, the ratio of the Hon’ble High Court Judgment is squarely applicable in the present case - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 1000
Nature of transaction - Service or not - Manpower recruitment and supply service or not - appellant had utilised services of the seconded employees of other firm under contract of employment - employer – employee relationship - case of appellant is that only employees working in foreign group company were deputed to its group company in India, hence is not covered under service provided from outside India - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the service said to be provided by M/s. Imasen Electric Industrial Company Ltd., Japan to the appellant were not taxable in eyes of law, especially when the appellant treated the amount paid to the said persons as salary in terms of Income tax rules and deducted the income tax on the same, in this regard the appellant produced Form No. 16 issued under Income Tax Act, which shows that the said persons worked as employee of the appellant, therefore, there is no doubt about the employer – employee relationship, thus the appellant is not liable to pay any service tax as confirmed vide the impugned order.
In the case of M/S VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2013 (11) TMI 298 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that The global employees working under the appellant are working as their employees and having employee-employer relationship. There is no supply of manpower service rendered to the appellant by the foreign/holding company. The method of disbursement of salary cannot determine the nature of transaction.
The appeal is allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 987
Principles of natural justice - matter was adjudicated ex-parte, in the absence of the petitioner - petitioner did not appear before the respondent - levy of service tax in respect of service rendered to members - HELD THAT:- One more opportunity can be extended to the petitioner to present its case before the respondent. It is true that a person who did not avail of the opportunity for hearing cannot later complain about violation of principles of natural justice. However, considering the fact that Ext.p11 request was made citing the COVID-19 pandemic and considering the fact that it the specific case of the petitioner that E-mail dated 03-03-2021 fixing the date of hearing on 25-03-2021 had not come to the notice of any of the office bearers of the petitioner, it is only appropriate such opportunity is extended to the petitioner.
It is settled law that when an order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice the availability of an alternative remedy is not a bar for exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - the respondent shall adjudicate Ext.P7 show cause notice afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 982
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed under section 85 (3) of the Finance Act - Rejection of refund claim - HELD THAT:- Initially the appellant was advised to file a representation before the Chief Commissioner against the order dated 26.10.2009, but subsequently, the counsel who was contacted, after the Range Officer informed the appellant that no appeal had been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), advised that an appeal was required to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), that an appeal was filed on 13.05.2010.
We are satisfied from the averments made in the delay condonation application that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The delay, is, accordingly condoned and the appeal shall be treated to have been filed within time before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits as expeditiously as is possible since the Adjudicating Authority had passed the order in 2009 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 931
GTA Services - service of transport operator or owner and not of any transport agency for inward transportation of raw material to their factory - adjudicating authority took the ground that there was no existence of ‘goods transport agency’ - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- There is no such provision in the scheme of Acts and Rules permitting assumption of facts to be made by the Adjudicating Authority, without reference to the facts on record. In this view of the matter, the basic fact and /or the requisite for charging service tax under GTA service i.e. service being provided by ‘goods transport agency’ as defined, nor existence of consignment note being there, the demand has been raised improperly as well as whimsically.
The penalties imposed are also set aside - the appeal is allowed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 927
Reopening of old assessments - Notifications dated 30th January 2009, 10th September 2014, February 2015 - Circular dated 03rd March 2015 - Para 12.3 and 12.4 of the Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX - Rule 3 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
Ms. Anju Gupta, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. I-UOI. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4. Let a counter-affidavit be filed within four weeks.
-
2021 (7) TMI 899
Refund of CENVAT credit - Certain FIRCs were addressed to unregistered premises - certain FIRCs were not produced can be considered as Export Turnover or not - invoices addressed to unregistered premises - non-compliance with the conditions 2(g) and 2(h) of N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT), dated 18.06.2012 - ceiling of the provisions of section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 - amount of refund claimed in ST-3 return, not debited - HELD THAT:- The appellants have not been able to explain the required documents before the refund sanctioning authority. The learned counsel has submitted that they would be able to produce and also explain in regard to necessary documents if they are given further chance.
The matter requires to be remanded to the refund sanctioning authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (7) TMI 898
Refund of credit availed on the service tax paid on input services - Information Technology Services and also export of same service - reverse charge mechanism - period July, 2013 to September, 2013 - refund denied on the ground that the said credit has not been shown in the ST-3 returns - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appellants are eligible for credit to the tune of ₹ 16,93,074/- on the service tax paid by them under reverse charge mechanism on input services availed by them. The only reason for denying the credit is that they have not reflected such availment of credit in ST-3 returns for July, 2013 to September, 2013 - The services having been exported, the service tax paid on the input services used for export of services should be refunded to the appellants as per Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants have properly accounted in their books of account. Not mentioning the credit availed in ST-3 returns is only a procedural lapse, which can be condoned.
The appellants are eligible for refund as claimed by them - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 887
SSI Exemption - branded service or not - service falling under threshold limit or not - Cable operator service - benefit of N/N. 6/2005-ST dated 1.03.2005 - exemption denied on the ground that appellant provided Branded service - HELD THAT:- Similar issue decided in the case of MS BLUE STAR COMMUNICATION, MS EK ONKAR DIGITAL SERVICES, MS SHARMA CABLE, MS EK ONKAR ENTERPRISES, MS SHIVA CABLE VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. -LUDHIANA [2019 (2) TMI 1385 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] where it was held that appellants are entitled for exemption under Notification No.6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, extended period of limitation is not invokable, and appellants are liable to pay service tax on the gross value of services received by them and is entitled to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid on the amount remitted to the MSO.
Relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Blue Star Communication, following order is passed:-
a) the appellants are entitled for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
b) the extended period of limitation is not invokable. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellants
c) the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the gross value of services received by them and is entitled to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid on the amount remitted to the MSO.
d) The adjudicating authority shall quantify the demand for the period within the period of limitation on production of data of services provided by the appellant of cable service to the subscribers within the 30 days of receipt of this order on which the appellant shall paid the service tax, if payable along with interest.
The matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating authority for quantification of demand - the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (7) TMI 854
Short payment of service tax - Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 - abatement sought for material components - availment of Composition Scheme - substantial false declaration or not - HELD THAT:- The calculation of tax short paid, as made by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order, is not due to any mis-declaration or false declaration under VCES. Ld. Commissioner has categorically observed that difference in tax liability is mainly due to interpretation and change in calculation of service tax, therefore, the mistake of the respondent/assessee in the declaration is bona fide and there is no malafide on their part.
In view of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of M/S BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS CST, DELHI & OTHERS. [2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)], the respondent is not required to pay service tax on the receipt of materials supplied free of cost, received from the principal. Thus, the amount demanded in the impugned order for the period 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 is set aside. Hence, the respondent is only required to pay the differential duty of ₹ 1,53,100/-. Further, penalty under Section 78 is also set aside, there being no case of falsification or contumacious conduct, in the facts and circumstances on the part of the respondent/assessee. The late fee of ₹ 20,000/- under Rule 7C is reduced to ₹ 10,000/-.
The appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 814
Interest on delayed refund (of pre-deposit) - relevant time - to be granted from the date of communication of the final order of the Tribunal till the date of grant of refund, or from the date of pre-deposit? - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra and in the case of M/S J.K. CEMENT WORKS VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, UDAIPUR [2021 (3) TMI 123 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein under the similar facts and circumstances, this Tribunal following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANDVIK ASIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS [2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT] as well as of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of HELLO MINERALS WATER (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2004 (7) TMI 98 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] held that interest is payable from the date of deposit till the date of grant of refund - Further, the Division Bench of this Tribunal in M/S PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [2017 (2) TMI 984 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] has held that interest is payable @12%, following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd.
The appellant is entitled for interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The order-in-original is restored with the modification in the rate of interest - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 735
Valuation - life insurance business - treatment of surrender value’ exacted, on premature exit, from holders of ‘unit linked insurance policy (ULIP)’as consideration for provision of service - whether the ‘surrender charge’ is consideration for a service that comes within the ambit of the levies pertaining to the insurance sector during the period of dispute?
HELD THAT:- It is common ground that upon an insured ceasing to comply with the obligation to pay the premium at stipulated intervals, the policy is deemed to be surrendered and the holder entitled to ‘surrender value’ representing the portion of the receipts that had been invested in the appropriate funds. There is also no dispute that the amount disbursed is lesser than the value of the funds on the date of surrender. The proposition of Learned Authorized Representative is that the amount so withheld is consideration for services rendered in connection with the fund during the period of investment.
The recall order was actuated by the merit of the plea in rectification proceedings that taxability under one of the enumerations in section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1944 appeared to have been considered in the decision of the Tribunal that ruled in favour of the assessee. Rectification that calls for recall remains as under disposal and attains consummation with substitution of the recalled order. It would be presumption for Learned Authorised Representative to conceive that such recall must, inevitably, lead to a contrary opinion on the part of the Tribunal - Mere reference to the recalled decision does not, ipso facto, render the finding to be bereft of value as precedent.
Reliance placed in the case of SHRIRAM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY VERSUS CC, CE & ST, HYDERABAD –IV AND CC, CE & ST, RANGAREDDY –GST (VICE-VERSA) [2019 (2) TMI 868 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] where it was held that the transaction in question is not a service at all but the transaction in a actionable claim hence could not have been by any stretch of imagination covered under any of the specified taxable heads of service even for the period prior to 01.07.2012 - the demand of service tax on the surrender charges for the period in question is unsustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 731
Refund of Cenvat Credit - Air Travel Agency Services - Short-term Hotel Accommodation Services - Cleaning Services - Pest Control Services - Krishi Kalyan Cess - HELD THAT:- Though, the authority below has denied the credit availed on these services alleging that these services have no nexus with the output services, the department has no case that the services were not availed by the appellants for the purpose of providing output services. As also, there is no evidence to establish that these services were used for personal consumption - From the documents furnished, it is convincing that these services have been availed by the appellants for export of their output services - Further, this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case M/S. MAERSK GLOBAL SERVICE CENTRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T & C.C.E, (CHENNAI OUTER) [2018 (7) TMI 1838 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - the rejection or refund of credit on these services is unjustified.
Short-term Hotel Accommodation Services are availed for the stay in hotel for attending workshop, seminars, meeting clients etc. - HELD THAT:- This is clear from documents in the nature of Hotel Invoice, e-mail etc. It is established that these are not used for personal consumption - appellant has relied on the decision in the case of M/S. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2019 (5) TMI 1569 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] to argue that the said decision has held that the credit availed on Hotel Accommodation Services is eligible - refund of credit is to be allowed.
Cleaning Services - HELD THAT:- As these services are required to keep the premises of the appellants’ office in a clean and hygienic manner. So also, is the case with pest Control Services - the appellant is eligible for refund of credit on these two services.
Krishi Kalyan Cess - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel has fairly stated that the credit availed on Krishi Kalyan Cess is not eligible and that they are not contesting the same. The refund denied under this head is upheld.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2021 (7) TMI 699
Delay in filing appeal before the Apex Court - Condonation of delay - Reduction of delay in filing SLP - one reason for the delay is due to the liner process being followed currently and even if we have a detailed timeline, it may be difficult to avoid delay unless steps in filing of SLP were merged. He suggested that instead of files going from one desk to another in the office of Commissioner in the field , then in Directorate, in CBDT/CBIC and then Ministry of Law and likewise again in the return journey, it should be examined whether an Inter-ministerial standing committee would be administratively possible.
HELD THAT:- During the course of the hearing, various suggestions have been discussed including the need to incorporate technological innovations in the process of monitoring litigation involving the revenue arm of the Union government. In order to facilitate further deliberations by the authorities of the Union government, we post the further hearing on 15 March 2021. It is requested that a consolidated proposal also incorporating technological modalities be placed before the Court on the next date of listing. The Solicitor General has agreed to interact with the Director General, National informatics Centre.
Since sufficient cause has been shown in condoning the delay, delay in filing the appeal is condoned - Counter affidavit shall be filed within three weeks from today.
-
2021 (7) TMI 661
Refund claim of input service tax credit - input service or not - Erection, Commissioning & Installation Services - denial of refund on the ground that the definition of input service exclude service portion in executing of works contract service, including services listed under clause (b) of Section 66E of Finance Act, 1994, insofar as used for construction of executing of works contract services of building of civil structure or part thereof - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner(Appeals) has not properly appreciated the definition of input service as provided in Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
On perusal of definition of 'input service', it is found that the credit which has been excluded from the definition of input service under clause 2(A) are (a) construction or execution of works contract of a building or a civil structure or a part thereof; or (b) laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods, except for the provision of one or more of the specified services. Construction or execution of works contract of a building or civil work only means service towards the construction of a new building especially civil structure work of the building or laying of foundation work for such building for support of capital goods whereas in the present case the nature of services so availed by the appellant was towards electrical works and modernisation of premises and it was not getting a new building constructed.
It is found that the circular No.943/4/2011-CX dt. 29/4/2011 provides that if the input services used for repair or renovation of the factory or the office, then cenvat credit is allowed and is covered by the definition of input service. Further it is found that since the appellants are engaged in export of software services wherein the human resource and infrastructure facility is availed in order to provide export of service and the services in dispute in the present case was essential for rendering export of service.
In the case of M/S MUSADDILAL PROJECTS LTD. VERSUS CCE, C & ST, HYDERABAD-I [2017 (4) TMI 951 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] an identical issue was considered and in para 15, the Tribunal has held that modernisation and renovation of the premises fall in the definition of input service - Similarly in the case of M/S MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. VERSUS CCE, HYDERABAD - I [2016 (6) TMI 1000 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], the Tribunal has held input service includes services rendered in relation to modernisation, renovation and repair of the factory and offices.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2021 (7) TMI 648
Validity of appellate order - applicability of decision in the case of M/S ICS FOOD PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NOIDA [2018 (7) TMI 1061 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] - the department had elected to carry the said order in an appeal before the Supreme Court and hence the said decision had not attained finality - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to relegate the petitioner to the appellate remedy at this stage. In our opinion, interest of justice would be sufficiently served if a limited remand is ordered to the Commissioner (Appeals-III) for revisiting his decision based on the circumstance that the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in M/S ICS FOOD PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NOIDA [2018 (7) TMI 1061 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] has since attained finality.
If indeed the said decision has applicability to the facts and enures to the benefit of the petitioner, the Commissioner (Appeals-III) shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order reversing his earlier decision which is impugned.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (7) TMI 646
Condonation of delay in filing claim - failure to remit the amount due under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 even after repeated extensions provided - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Writ Petitions are presented only on 30.04.2021, 10 months after the last date for remittance of the amounts. No plausible reason is set out in the affidavit justifying the delay except to state that the assessees were facing hardships on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the light of the long delay sans explanation, there is no merit in these Writ Petitions and the same are dismissed.
-
2021 (7) TMI 633
Refund of service tax paid - refund arose as a consequence of introduction of Section 104 of the Finance Act w.e.f. 31.03.2017 - rejection on the ground of non-submission of necessary documents - requirements under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Finance Act, 1944 vide Section 83 of the Act not complied with - N/N. 41/2016 dated 22.09.2016 - HELD THAT:- N/N. 41/2016 dated 22.09.2016 has exempted taxable service provided by the State Government Industrial Development Corporation/Undertakings to industrial units by way of granting long term lease on industrial plot from so much of service tax leviable thereon under Section 66B of the said Act, as is leviable on the one time upfront amount payable for such lease. Vide Section 104 (1), exemption was provided from said services for the period from 01.06.2007 to 21.09.2016 and it was provided that the refund claim should be filed within a period of six months from the date from which Finance Act, 2017 is promulgated and come into force.
In the present case, the appellant filed the refund claim within time and the only ground for which the refund was rejected by the Original Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority is that the appellant did not produce sufficient documents in the form of invoices/bills showing that they have paid the service tax to KINFRA. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed various invoices/bills issued by KINFRA showing the payment of service tax by the appellant for which the refund claim has been filed by the appellant.
Further KINFRA has also issued a certificate dated 02.02.2021 certifying that they have not availed any CENVAT credit on the service tax paid by the appellant. Further, these bills/invoices issued by KINFRA clearly show the payment of service tax by the appellant to KINFRA and KINFRA in turn has paid the same to the Government. Though these invoices/bills were not produced before the Original Authority but various Challans issued by KINFRA were produced along with worksheets showing the payment of service tax to KINFRA by the appellant.
In view of the facts that now the appellants have produced sufficient documents to prove the payment of service tax, there are no justification for rejection of the refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|
