2018 (9) TMI 1592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Advocate For the Appellant Shri 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 num....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tax liability of Rs. 4,94,144/- and subsequently 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 henc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and 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 c....