9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st on security deposit is altogether independent litigation which is pending disposal before the Hon ble High Court. Further it is a settled law that refund cannot be denied merely on the ground that some demand is pending in another case which is subjudice before the Court. The rejection of refund claim only on the ground that the issue of Service Tax liability on notional interest is pending is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20072/2019-SM - Final Order No.20474/2019 - Dated:- 20-6-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sh. Somasekaran, Advocate Sh. Sree Ganesh, CA - For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent, AR - For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is applicable in the present case. Thereafter, the original authority rejected the claim on account of another independent adjudication order against which the appellants have filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed that liability. He further submitted that the appellant has paid the excess payment of ₹ 8,66,201/- as Service Tax and filed the refund claim which was initially rejected by the original authority on time bar against which the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the appellant and remanded the case back to the original authority to pass a fresh order on merits. Thereafter, the appellant appeared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id. 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that it is an undisputed fact that the appellant has paid the excess amount of ₹ 8,66,201/- for the financial year 2012-13 for which he filed the refund claim which was initially rejected by the original authority on time bar but on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the time bar and remanded the case back to the original authority to pass a fresh order on merits. Thereafter on remand, the original authority has admitted that the claim filed by the appellant is not time barred and no unjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
