9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropped the penalty by resorting to Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. After the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has been writing various letters to various Departmental Officer for proper verification as per the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) but none of the officers bothered to comply with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and they have been delaying the matter without any proper reasons. The appellant has placed all the letters on record which clearly shows that he has been pressing and requesting the Departmental Officer to comply with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) but no Departmental Officer did the proper verification and thereafter the appellant himself filed the refund application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de Order-in-Original dated 29.11.2010 reduced the demand to ₹ 6,78,657/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Seven only) along with equal penalty. After the receipt of the said order, appellant deposited the service tax of ₹ 5,69,517/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen only) along with interest of ₹ 1,30,922/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Two only) and penalty of ₹ 1,69,665/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Five only) vide various challans and thereafter filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 03.08.2012 had extended the benefit of cum-tax value and has also set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .02.2018 claimed the refund of service tax of ₹ 2,20,513/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Thirteen only) paid by him in excess in the transaction. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 07.03.2018 rejected the said refund application as time-barred. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso relied upon the following decisions: a. Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2017 (6) GSTL-308 b. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2014 (311) E.L.T. 816 5. On the other hand the 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 the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 03.08.2012 has given cum-tax benefit to the appellant and the said benefit was to be determined after proper verification by the jurisdictional officer. Further, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also dropped the penalty by resorting to Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. After the decision of the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
