TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided by any person to another person for transmission of electricity is exempt from service tax. The appellant has filed various documents as was demanded by the original authority but the original authority has wrongly come to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish whether the service tax paid for the month of April, May and June, 2010 is for the services provided by them for period after issuance of Notification No. 11/2010-ST or otherwise. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and without considering all the submissions made by him in his appeal. Both the authorities have wrongly come to the conclusion that the burden of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claim of service tax amounting to Rs 7,27,884/- on 7.12.10 for the refund of service tax paid for the period 27.2.10 to 30.6.10 on account of Erection, Commissioning Installation services for transmission of electricity which is exempted under Notification No. 11/2010-ST dated 27.2.10. The department raised certain objections and demanded certain documents from the appellant before processing the refund application and the appellant supplied copies of GAR-7 showing payment of service tax alongwith copy of work order cum contract agreement and running invoices pertaining to the said contract. The appellant also submitted certificate from Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) for work done and running invoices for the month of April, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is within the period of limitation. He further submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their contention on the ground that said Notification pertains to those cases where service tax has not been levied and not to those cases where service tax has been levied. 4.1 Ld. Counsel further submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted the language of the Notification. He further submitted that the appellant has given details of the bills showing the work but the same has been ignored by both the authorities. He further submits that in the absence of any evidence, it is unjustified to assume that the services must have been rendered prior to 27.02.2010. 4.2 Ld. Counsel also submits that both the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and without considering all the submissions made by him in his appeal. 6.2 Further, I also find that both the authorities have wrongly come to the conclusion that the burden of duty has already been passed on to the customers. Both the authorities did not examine the invoices/bills submitted by the appellant. There is no invoice wherein the appellant has charged service tax and in the absence of specifically charging the service tax, it cannot be presumed that service tax has been actually charged. Moreover, the appellant has paid service tax on the gross value received from PSEB which is a Government undertaking and as per the terms and conditions of the work order, it is the responsibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
