9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /16/14/2020-R.F.Tech and for a direction to pay interest to the petitioner on the amount paid by the petitioner pending investigation. 3. The petitioner was rendering works contract during the period in dispute between 10.9.2004 and 31.10.2008. The said service became taxable from 1.6.2007. A statement was therefore recorded from the proprietor of the petitioner on 23.8.2008 pursuant to which, the petitioner also obtained service tax registration on 25.8.2008 under the category of "Construction of Residential Complex and Construction of Commercial or Industrial Complex Service" under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. The petitioner was thereafter issued with a Show Cause Notice No.270/2009 dated 08.07.2009 for the period between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in Original No.2/2011 dated 27.01.2011 also imposed penalty Rs.70,00,000/-(Rupees Seventy Lakhs only ) on the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal in S.T./257/2011. The said Appeal was eventually allowed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tribunal (CESTAT) vide its Final Order No.43018/2018 dated 22.11.2018 with consequential relief to the petitioner. 7. The Tribunal took note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. L&T Limited vs. CCE 2015(39) STR 913 (SC) and also few other decisions of the Tribunal and allowed the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner. 8. Pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, the 2nd res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined only to Rs.67,97,827/-. 14. The department has also not preferred an appeal. Therefore to that extent the rights of the petitioner stand crystallised though wrongly. 15. The petitioner has not been paid interest separately on the amount that was deposited pending investigation. To that extent, the petitioner is entitled in interest at the rate of 6% on Rs.57,03,608/- [ Rs.55,47,059/- towards tax and Rs.1,56,549/- towards interest] only. 16. The amount of tax which was paid by the petitioner for the subsequent period after 1.6.2007 could not have been refunded. However, curiously it appears to have also has been ordered to be refunded back. This would require a proper examination which fact is not forthcoming either from the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
