9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent would be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. may not be interfered with but, in our view, the writ Court ought to have allowed the writ petition and directed refund of the service tax deposited by the petitioner/appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Appeal No. 2769/2013 (T-Res) - - - Dated:- 11-3-2015 - Vineet Saran And S. Sujatha,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri Rajesh Chander Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Sri K N Mohan, Adv. JUDGMENT This is an unusual case where, despite there being a direction by the competent authority to refund the service tax deposited by the appellant, the same has not been refunded by the respondent -authority, even though the stay application filed by the respondent along w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent no.2 -Commissioner of Service Tax filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal along with an application for staying the implementation of the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The said application for stay was rejected by the Tribunal on 10.9.2012. 4. Despite the rejection of the stay application of the respondent by the Tribunal, the service tax deposited by the appellant/petitioner was not refunded. Hence, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.3740/13 with the prayer for a direction for payment of the said Service Tax, which has been disposed of by judgment and order dated 11.3.2013 with a direction that the appellant/petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit up to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to. The order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the stay application has not been challenged by the respondent. If the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted that since the appeal is pending before the Tribunal the refund should not be directed, then it is not understood that why at all the respondent had filed an application for grant of stay before the Tribunal. 9. The respondent was fully aware that it was liable to refund the service tax deposited by the appellant in terms of the order dated 28.12.2011 and for that reason it had filed the stay application and once the stay application had been rejected, the order dated 28.12.2011 ought to have been implemented, as it is a fact that the order dated 10.9.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
