9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arg The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 15.7.2011 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim rejected by the original authority on Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service and Chartered Accountants Service amounting to Rs. 5,35,572/- and also allowed Education Cess and Higher Secondary Education Cess on the service tax paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the same was not found in the approved list of specific services in Annexure II & III and consequently, denied the refund on these two services vide Order-in-Original dated 29.9.2010. In the same order, the Assistant Commissioner has also rejected the refund claim of Rs. 12,197 being Education Cess and Higher Education Cess and sanctioned the refund of Rs. 4,06,584/- being service Tax paid on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned order, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the impugned Order-in-Original has passed a detailed order and thereafter set aside the Order-in-Original. Here, it is pertinent to reproduce Paragraph 7 of the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under : "7. From the above, it appears to me that Government s intention is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services. The amendment to the notification No. 09/2009 by Notification No. 15/2009 was beneficial in nature so that the units do not have to first pay the service tax and then come forward for refund if entire services were wholly consumed within the SEZ. Denying the refund in case the service tax had been paid would be against the both law and spirit." I also find that the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
