9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar The facts of the case are that appellants were authorized sales and service dealer of RICOH Photo Copier etc. and undertook repair and maintenance activities. Till 31.3.2008, the appellants were raising invoices for repair and maintenance of photocopier on the basis of total number of copies taken and were charging a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently filed refund claim on 14.5.2009 for the said amount. The competent original authority vide OIO No.48/2010 dt. 2.12.2010 rejected the refund claim. Around the same time, SCN dt. 31.5.2010 was issued to appellants alleging that service tax amount of Rs. 4,94,144/- for the period April 2008 to September 2008 was paid by the appellant belatedly and hence they are liable for payment of intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have gone through the facts. 5. We find that the Ld. Advocate is correct in his assertion that the issue at hand is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Safety Retreading case (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said landmark judgment has unequivocally held that when the assesseee had paid tax under the State statute on the value component of material used, service tax would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
