TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has collected service tax - Held that:- Appellants have replied to the SCN along with necessary documents to support that they have not taken any CENVAT credit and they have borne the tax incidence. However, it is borne out from the records that the authorities below have not considered these documents - the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for considering the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the appellant had issued invoices to Canara Bank for collecting the amount from the appellant, Canara Bank had not issued any invoices to the appellant. The appellant coming to realize this double payment of service tax for the very same activity filed refund claim for refund of ₹ 3,53,585/- under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Show cause notice was issued to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrongly by Canara Bank. He submitted that they had furnished necessary proof before the adjudicating authority to establish that the appellant has not passed the burden of tax to any other person. He adverted to sub-section (1) of Section 11B and submitted that any person who is eligible to get the excess paid tax can prefer the refund under section 11B. In the present case, since the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has borne the incidence of service tax relating to the refund claim. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The department has issued a letter dated 17.2.2017 informing the appellant that the refund claim has to be rejected for the reason that they have taken CENVAT credit of the amount which has been collected by Canara Bank. The said letter is stated to be a show cause notice and the appellants h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
