9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor/Director of G-Tech Computer Education Centres situated at Kakkattil and Kallachi. On intelligence that the appellant is not observing rules and regulations of service tax, action was initiated against him by collecting the details of services provided by them. Show cause notice No. 14/2010 dated 16.03.2010 for an amount of Rs. 1,79,439/- and another show-cause notice No. 19/2010 dtd 17.03.2010 for an amount of Rs. 1,20,641/- for the period October 2006 to December 2008 and October 2007 to December 2008 pertaining to Kakkattil and Kallachi centres respectively were issued. However, the appellant paid the service tax liability before issuance of the above said show cause notices. Vide Order-in-Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho 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 rejecting the refund of the appellant by both the authorities is wrong and not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the department is bound to honour final judgment in the case irrespective of whether the outcome of it is for or against the Revenue. He further submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is the final judgement in the case and remain unchallenged by either side. Final judgement makes it clear that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide 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 of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) filed a refund application which was rejected by the original authority and the appeal of the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) has also been rejected. Rejection of the refund merely on the ground that the appellant has voluntarily paid the tax is not legally correct. Having accepted the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), the department cannot turnaround and does not implemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
