9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nghvi, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Vivek Pandey, Authorised Representative of the Respondent ORDER This Appeal is directed against the order dated 15 July, 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, New Delhi [the Commissioner], for recovery of refund amount of ₹ 1,74,18,244/- sanctioned by order dated 14 June, 2013. The Commissioner has also directed that interest should also be charged and recovered from the Appellant. 2. The Appellant is engaged in general insurance business and opted for provisional assessment during 2008-09 and 2009-10. The same was finalized by order dated 29 March, 2012 holding that for the month of January, 2009 the Appellant had paid Service Tax of ₹ 1,41,44, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,74,18,244/- (₹ 3,15,62,248 ₹ 1,41,44,005) on 14 March, 2013, being the excess payment of Service Tax as confirmed by order dated 29 March, 2012. This refund claim was allowed by order dated 14 June, 2013. However, the Department challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appeal by the Department before the Tribunal against the order dated 30 August, 2012 was pending. The appeal filed by the Department was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 17 December, 2012. This order was assailed by the Appellant before the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed by order dated 21 September, 2017 and the operative part of the order is reproduced below : 8. The fact that the appellant paid e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances, the reason for issuing the show cause notice that an appeal is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), no longer survives as the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been set aside by the Tribunal. 10. Learned Authorized Representative of the Department has supported the impugned order for the reasons mentioned therein. 11. The submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Authorized Representative of the Department have been considered. 12. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant deserves to be accepted. The reasons indicated in the show cause notice for denying refund to the Appellant no longer survive as, though the Appeal that was filed by the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
