9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een accepted by the Revenue and appeal there against stanad admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also a fact that there is no stay of operation of Tribunal's decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and mere admission of the appeal filed by the Revenue cannot be adopted as a ground for non following of the Tribunal's decision. In as much as the Tribunal has already decided the issue in favour of the assessee, I find no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of appellant - ST/50442/2016-ST(SM) - Final Order No. 53014/2016-ST(SM) - Dated:- 4-8-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Pravesh Khandelwal Shri Vipin, CA for the Applicants Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as GAP international Sourcing (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST-2014-TIOL-465-CESTAT-Del. 3. During the re-adjudication, the original adjudicating authority, in terms of law declared by the Tribunal in the same assessee's case held that the refund is admissible to the assessee and accordingly allowed the same to the extent of ₹ 16 99,844/-, vide his order dated 27.05.2015. 4. Being aggrieved with the said order of original Adjudicating Authority, Revenue filed the appeal these against before Commissioner (A), on various grounds. The assessee also filed cross objection by submitting that the issue now stands decided by the Tribunal's decision in their own case and the Revenue cannot take a view different than the one taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the question of law when challenged in higher forum, till decided in a manner that it attains finality and is accepted b one and all, remains open and obviously the stand of the department is absolutely in consonance to the said principle. I therefore, feel that the department has highly pointed out that refund order is legally improper on this count Further, in another case M/s Microsoft Computer (I) Pvt Ltd 2014 (36) STR 766 (Tri-Del) the judgment given by the Hon 'ble Delhi CESTAT has been challenged by the department and an SLP has been filed with the Hon 'ble Supreme Court reported as 2015 (39) STR J310 (SC) and the said appeal has been admitted as is evident from the following: The Supreme Court Bench comprising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existed upto 28.02.2010. Hence the present appeal by the Assessee. 6. As in seen from the above, the Appellate Authority is not disputing the fact that the Tribunal's decision in the same assessee s case has held that the services rendered by them are required to be held as export of services, in which case the refund would be admissible to them. However, the Commissioner (A) has not followed the said decision of the Tribunal on the sole ground that the same has not been accepted by the Revenue and appeal there against stanad admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also a fact that there is no stay of operation of Tribunal's decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and mere admission of the appeal filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
