9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant on realising that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal & Anuj Goyal & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors. - 2016 (6) TMI 192 (Del.) held that appellant was not required to pay service tax, therefore, they filed the claim of refund of service tax paid by them to the builder. A show cause notice was issued to reject the refund claim on the premise that the refund claim is barred by limitation and the appellant has not filed the documents for entertaining the claim as prescribed in terms of Section 11B of Act. The matter was adjudicated. In reply to the show cause notice the appellant provided the details of the builder who sold flat to the appellant with his service tax registration number and other details which are r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is prayed that refund claim is to be entertained. He further submitted that it is fact on record that service tax was payable by the appellant therefore, the provisions of Section 11B of the Act is not applicable in the light of various judicial pronouncements namely, in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. KVR Construction - 2012 (26) STR 195 (Kar.) and Swastik Sanitarywares Limited Vs. UOI - 2013 (296) ELT 321 (Guj.). Therefore, he prayed that refund claim to be sanctioned to them along with interest. 4. On the other hand ld. AR opposed the contention of the appellant and submits that as it is an issue of taxability and therefore the matter is required to be transferred to Division Bench. The argument of the ld. AR is turned down as both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order. In the impugned order the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that as the provisions of Section 11B of the Act is not applicable therefore, the refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation but in the same breath he has recorded that appellant has not provided documents as per Section 11B of the Act. I find that in the impugned order the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) himself has taken contradictory views as on the one side he says that provisions of Section 11B of the Act are not applicable whereas on the other side he records that documents, as per Section 11B of the Act, are not provided. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) seems to be confused and finally taken a view that refund claim cannot be entertained without being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
