9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: S.S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant are registered with this Service Tax Department for providing commercial & industrial construction service falling under Section 65(25b)/65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1944. Service tax demand of Rs. 36,55,455/- wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, the appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 2,74,500/-paid in excess as pre-deposit, the said refund was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) who set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the Department's appeal and ordered recovery of Rs. 2,74,500/- under Section 73 of the Act. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the record, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s Santani Sales Organization Vs. CESTAT, Delhi and others, in writ petition no. 4551/2017 dated 31.05.2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as under:- It is directed that the petitioner and others on filing second appeal before the Tribunal are required to deposit 10% of the amount of duty/penalty as confirmed by the first appellate authority inclusiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present case the appellant paid 7.5% before filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) and 10% of the impugned demand before filing the appeal before the CESTAT, thereby making total of pre-deposit of 17.5% instead of 10%, as is required under Section 35F. Further, I find that the original authority after considering the submissions of the appellant has rightly allowed the refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
