2018 (2) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Respondent : Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, (Proxy Counsel) Advocate ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order, wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a contractor and doing the activity/service of "Flash Butt Welding of Railway Joint of Pipes/Railway Line on Railway .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Revenue preferred appeal before me. 3. The ld. A. R. for Revenue has submitted that as the services provided to railways were exempted from 06/02/2008 and the respondent chose to pay Service Tax. Furter, contended that the Service Tax has been recovered from the railways as same was included in the contract price. Therefore, they are not entitled for refund claim. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Dines .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X