TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this matter before the CESTAT against the order passed in Ext. P2 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal vide the order dated 19.01.2018 in Ext. P3, remanded the matter back to the original authority to examine the record of the petitioner afresh and pass a fresh order. On remand, the 2nd respondent/original authority had considered the issue afresh and issued order dated 25.03.2021 in Ext. P5. The 2nd respondent had found that the payment of Rs. 15,66,169/- was made under protest. However, the petitioner did not produce any convincing document to prove that the tax paid by him of Rs. 15,66,169/- had not been passed on to the consumer of services ie., the respective distilleries and therefore, the petitioner had been held not to be en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For the Respondents: By Adv P.G. Jayashankar, Sri. P.G. Jayashankar-SC. JUDGMENT Heard Ms. K. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as Sri. P.G Jayashankar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent authorities. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Elite Distilleries Beverages Co., situated at Mundur, Thrissur. As per the averments in the writ petition, the writ petitioner concerned is engaged in blending and bottling of Indian Made Foreign Liquor on behalf of other distilleries. The petitioner is an assessee for service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The service tax of Rs. 15,66,169/- was demanded from the petitioner from April 2006 to September 2007. As in the opinion of the taxing autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 19.01.2018 in Ext. P3, remanded the matter back to the original authority to examine the record of the petitioner afresh and pass a fresh order. On remand, the 2nd respondent/original authority had considered the issue afresh and issued order dated 25.03.2021 in Ext. P5. The 2nd respondent had found that the payment of Rs. 15,66,169/- was made under protest. However, the petitioner did not produce any convincing document to prove that the tax paid by him of Rs. 15,66,169/- had not been passed on to the consumer of services ie., the respective distilleries and therefore, the petitioner had been held not to be entitled for claiming refund in absence of the evidence to prove that the petitioner had not passed on the tax liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
