9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in providing 'stock broker services' and hold a valid service tax registration No.AABCH1528GST001. The appellants had filed a refund claim for Rs. 7,65,000/- on 26-3-2007 on the ground that they had refunded certain brokerage and service tax to one of their clients M/s. Deep Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad during the month of No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em has not been passed on by them to any other person was furnished. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 7-6-07 which was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax, Division-II, Ahmedabad vide the impugned order. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim of Rs. 7,65,000/- filed by the appellants being time barred. Appeal filed before the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime. He submitted that before Commissioner (Appeals) as well as before the Tribunal, appellants did not submit the details of that portion of claim which was within time. He also submitted that if the appellants had a scheme which provided for refund of brokerage with service tax on the basis of turnover, the proper course was to seek provisional assessment which they failed to do as observed righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined correctly only when the period is over and the turnover is known. As rightly observed by the lower authorities, the relevant date is defined under Section 11B of Central Excise Act made applicable to service tax matters vide Section 83 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and while rejecting the refund claim the provisions of Section 11B have been correctly taken into account. It has also been observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
