9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kar, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against order in appeal No PK/903/ME/2018 dated 04.10.2018 of the Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Appeal-II), Mumbai. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeal) has held as follows: "8.1 Respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble CESTAT, I hold that the adjudicating authority ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d claim on the ground that they have paid this amount towards service tax erroneously as the same was to be paid by the developer M/s M. Construction Co and Associates as per the CBEC Circular issued vide F No 354/311/2015-TRU dated 20.01.2016. 2.2 The refund claim filed by the appellants was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) Service Tax-VI, Mumbai. 2.3 Against the order of Deputy Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the same from their customers, in alternate the same should be adjusted against the tax liability of M/s M Construction Co & Associates. 3.3 Arguing for revenue learned Authorized Representative submitted that undisputedly appellants have recovered the amount paid by them as service tax from their customers. Since they have recovered this amount from their customers, they have passed on the bur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tax paid even erroneously cannot be refunded to them. [Mafatalal Industries [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)]. 4.3 I also find that there is no provision in law for transferring the amount, from the account of on registered tax payer to the account of another tax payer from whom said amount of tax was actually due. Even otherwise the amount, which had been paid by the appellants as tax which was not due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
