TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....department. The Appellant is also registered under Finance Act, 1994 for payment of service tax on account of erection, commissioning and installation. The appellant filed a refund 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 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efund claim can be filed within six months from the date of issue of notification and in the present case, the appellant has filed the refund claim on 07.12.2010 which 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issuance of Notification No. 11/2010-ST or otherwise. 6.1 Further, I find that 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. 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 t....