9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Construction of Complex Services for the period from 11/2005 to 03/2007; that the proposed demand came to be confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 23/2011-ST (ADC) dated 30.08.2011 wherein the amount paid during investigation was appropriated; that thereafter, the appellant approached the First Appellate Authority, who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 58/2012-ST dated 22.10.2012 allowed the refund claim on the ground that the Service Tax liability in respect of Construction of Complex Service was only from 01.07.2010; that thereafter, when the appellant approached the Revenue for refund, they were informed that against the Order-in-Appeal (supra) of the First Appellate Authority, the Revenue had filed an appeal before the CESTAT; that the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Commr. of G.S.T. & C.Ex., Chennai [2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 98 (Tri. - Chennai)] 3.2 Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s. Ajni Interiors v. Union of India and anor. [2019 (9) TMI 529 - Gujarat High Court] and also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala which is referred to in the impugned order. 4.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case vis-à-vis the decisions/rulings referred to during the course of arguments and I find that there are contrary decisions of higher fora on this issue. I find that the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/s. 3E Infotech (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals), which indicates that the tax collected was without the authority of law. Moreover, the liability itself for the period covered herein was not there, as observed in the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.10.2012, which casts a serious doubt on the bona fides of the Revenue when Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2010 was issued demanding the tax for the disputed period, when the tax on the service involved itself was introduced later, with effect from 01.07.2010. Therefore, the tax paid amounts to the one paid under mistake of law. 5. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the rejection of refund is unsustainable. Hence, the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
