9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER In both the appeals, issue involved is same and therefore both the appeals are taken together and a common order is passed. In the first appeal ST/2016/2011, the refund of Rs. 7,31,625/- sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority has been held to have been sanctioned wrongly and his order has been revised in exercise of powers of revision b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... added. In the meantime, the appellant had applied for refund of the service tax paid in respect of the input services to the Department. The credit of service tax was paid in respect of renting of immovable property received by their branches and taken in the Bangalore office. The Commissioner in exercise of powers vested in Section 84, issued two show-cause notices proposing to revise the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not have been denied on the ground that the branches were not registered. As regards availment of credit by Bangalore headquarter without a centralized registration, the fact that appellant had applied for centralized registration but Department issued registration only in respect of headquarter would render it to be a technical issue since there is a substantive adherence of law in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not included by mistake in view of the fact that the appellant had taken a centralized registration and having paid the tax therein and there is no contrary finding to the effect that the tax was payable by the branch credit is not admissible. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders have no merit and have to be set aside. Accordingly, appeals are allowed with consequential relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
