9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the appeals is not justified and correct - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20164/2017-SM, ST/20165/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20480-20481/2017 - Dated:- 7-4-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. C. Ramachandran For the Appellant Mr. Pakshi Rajan, A.R. - For the Respondent ORDER Both the appeals are directed against the common impugned order dated 17.11.2016 passed by Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Proprietor/Director of G-Tech Computer Education Centres situated at Kakkattil and Kallachi. On intelligence that the appellant is not observing rules and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice shows that they accepted the liability. That the appellant had not produced any documents to prove that the incidence of service tax was not passed over to the clients; that Commissioner (Appeals) had not nullified the self-assessment made by the appellant; that the appeal order will not have any effect on the self-assessment made by the appellant prior to issuance of show cause notice and rejected the refund claim accordingly. 3. Aggrieved by the order-in-original appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has also rejected the appeal of the appellant and hence the present appeals. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing authority is bound to pay interest on the amount from the date when the refund became due. On the other hand learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find that when the Commissioner(Appeals) vide his order dated 26.02.2014 has held that the appellant is entitled to pay the interest for the normal period and set aside the tax liability beyond the normal period by setting aside the invocation of extended period of limitation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also set aside the penalty under Section 77 78 also. Further the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not challenged by the Revenue and the same has become final and the appellant in pursuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
