9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 18 - AT - Service TaxStay application for withholding refund - Demand dropped in order-in-original - Consulting engineering service - Respondent stated that once demand has been dropped, even as per the board s circular F, No. 276/186/2015-CX.8A dated 1.6.2015 the refund should not be withheld - Held that - even CBEC circular advises field formations to try and obtain stay only where orders have been passed by Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the order has been passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (and not Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)). - Stay applications dismissed as misconceived and infructuous
Issues: Stay application against the order in original dated 16.6.2015 dropping the demand of ? 389,02,36,342/- alleging provision of consulting engineering service.
Analysis: 1. The Revenue filed a stay application along with an appeal against the order in original dated 16.6.2015, which dropped the demand raised in the show cause notice dated 23.6.2014. The demand dropped was of a substantial amount, ? 389,02,36,342/-, based on the allegation that the respondent provided consulting engineering service. 2. The Revenue expressed concerns that if the order was not stayed, it could lead to a refund of the amount already deposited by the respondent. On the other hand, the consultant for the respondent argued that as per a CBEC Circular dated 1.6.2015, once the demand had been dropped, the refund should not be withheld. 3. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both sides and observed that the stay application was misconceived and infructuous. The Tribunal referred to the CBEC Circular, which highlighted that stay applications should be filed expeditiously in cases where orders have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, in this case, the order had been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, not the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 4. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application as misconceived and infructuous. The Tribunal emphasized that the CBEC Circular advised field formations to seek stay only in cases where orders had been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was not the situation in this case. Therefore, the stay application was deemed unnecessary and was rejected.
|
