9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date on which service tax was required to be paid. Moreover, the show-cause notice proposed demand under one service category whereas confirmation was under another category. Therefore, I find that the appellant is eligible for the refund of tax which was paid by them and it was not required to be paid. I was informed that the remand order has not yet been implemented by the original adjudicating authority. Therefore, the original adjudicating authority is requested to proceed further in the light of observations made hereinabove and decide the matter afresh. - Appeal disposed of. - ST/61/2007-SM - Final Order No. 20110 / 2015 - Dated:- 19-1-2015 - Shri B. S. V. Murthy,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Mohd. Yusuf For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount of Hyderabad-I Commissionerate for the period 2003-2004 2004-2005 which included a. Service tax for an amount of ₹ 32,42,003/- on an amount of ₹ 4,05,25,035/- paid to ALOG under the category of Technical Inspection Certification. b. Service tax for an amount of ₹ 5,39,699.68 on an amount of ₹ 67,46,246/- paid to Lachman Consultant Services, Inc, New York. v. Since the amount of ₹ 32,42,003/- was inadvertently and erroneously paid by way of service tax to the account of Hyderabad-I Commissionerate, the appellants applied for a refund on 8.2.2005 vide refund application dated 4.2.2005. vi. This was followed by show-cause notice (SCN) C. No.V/29/18/14/2005-R dated 6.6.2005 from the Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al with the Commissioner (Appeals) against the decision in Order-in-Original No.14/2006 dated 31.3.2006. xi. The Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals-I) through his Order-in-Appeal No.5/2006 (H-I) S. Tax dated 28.9.2006 had held that show-cause notice proposed to reject the refund claim by treating the said services as taxable under the category of Technical Testing and Analysis Services whereas the said impugned order held that they fell under Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service which was not mentioned in the SCN at all and thus traveled beyond the scope of the SCN. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority on the ground that the Order-in-Original No.14/2006 dated 31.3.2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
