2014 (10) TMI 732

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : Mr. N. Jagdish, AR ORDER Per: B.S.V. MURTHY; The issue involved in all the 3 appeals is common and therefore even though the appellants are challenging different orders-in-appeal, all the appeals are taken together and a common order is passed. 2. First we take up the case of Orma Granite Centre. In this case the demand for service tax comes to Rs. 1,73,005/- after taking into account the ab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refore question of availing CENVAT credit by them does not arise and therefore there was no need for the appellant to produce any evidence. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rajkot Vs. Sunhill Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (9) S.T.R. 530 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] wherein it was held that where the service provider has not taken registration, there is no need for the service receiver t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and for service tax is only on the ground that service tax is liable to be paid by receiver even if the service provider has paid. We have already taken a view that in the absence of any evidence that the service provider has not paid the tax, the receiver cannot be compelled to pay. Therefore in this case also the appeal has to be allowed. 4. In the result in all the 3 cases the appellants have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X