9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 17-6-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Taxes whereby he has upheld the order of the original authority to the extent of rejection of Service Tax of ₹ 1,08,750/- paid on Real Estate Agent Service and ₹ 1500/- paid on Management Consultant Service on invoices dated 23.03.2016 and 13.07.2016 respectively. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s obtained approval of the alleged services consequent to the receipt of the said services and has not obtained prior approval. He further submitted that this issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case for the prior period and this Tribunal vide its Final Order No.21205/2016 dated 18.11.2016 has allowed the refund on similar allegations. He further submitted that the said procedural requirement of obtaining prior approval covered under 3(II) of the said Notification which deals with only ab initio exemption on the specified services received by the SEZ Unit. He further submitted that there is no requirement or conditions of prior approval in 3(III) based on which the refund is to be sanctioned. He also submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that in the appellant s own case for the previous period, Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund on the ground that approval was obtained subsequently from the Development Commissioner. The Department filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 18.11.2016 upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal of the Revenue. The ratio of the said decisions is applicable in the present case besides this the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra is also applicable in the present case. Therefore, by following the ratio of the said decisions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order denying the refund of ₹ 1,10,250/- is not sustainable in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
