9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of operation, maintenance, management also along with marketing services. Therefore, I am of the view that the mis-classification of services in the invoices cannot be a ground for rejection of refund claim. Tribunal had considered the issue of mis-description of services as well as the issue of time bar and both the issues were held in favour of the respondent herein. The very same issue is challenged in the present appeal. The issue having attained finality, I do not think it necessary to go into any discussion. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/40559/2014 - FINAL ORDER NO.41025/2019 - Dated:- 13-8-2019 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant: Ms. T. Ushadevi, DC (AR) For the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amt. of refund sanctioned in O-I-O (in Rs.) Amt. of rejected sanctioned in O-I-O (Amt. in Rs.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 301/2011 (M-ST) 35/2011 (Refund), dt-05.05.2011 01.11.2009 to 31.03.2010 67,428 14,65,2016 2 394/2011 (M-ST) 54/2011 (Refund), dt-28.07.2011 01.04.2010 to 30.09.2010 10,48,057 The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order impugned herein rejected the appeal filed by the appellant wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel Shri Harish Bindhu Madhavan appeared on behalf of the respondent and argued the matter. He produced a copy of Final Order Nos.42759-42760/2018, dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case in Appeal Nos.ST/40277-40278/2014, which are appeals filed against the order impugned herein. It is submitted by him that the respondents herein had filed appeal against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) [OIA Nos.317-318/2013] and the Tribunal had considered the entire issue and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein. It is submitted by him that in respect of appeal filed by them for ₹ 14,65,106/-, the issue was with regard to the misdescription of services in the invoices. The services were mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provider. Merely because one of the services, which have been agreed between the parties is marketing of the immovable property, it cannot be said that the services rendered would exclusively fall under Real Estate Agent Service. Since the service provider is a property manager, they are providing services of operation, maintenance, management also along with marketing services. Therefore, I am of the view that the mis-classification of services in the invoices cannot be a ground for rejection of refund claim. I hold that the appellant is eligible for refund in Appeal No.ST/40277/2014. 7. In the above final order, the Tribunal had considered the issue of mis-description of services as well as the issue of time bar and both the issues w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
