w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Commissioner of Central Excise v/s M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.

Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U04010CT1995PLC008985

Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27105HR1979PLC009913

Company & Directors' Information:- B D STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100WB2010PTC144767

Company & Directors' Information:- CENTRAL INDIA POWER COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100MH1994PLC084055

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. POWER AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14290DL2012PTC240718

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100CT2009PTC021362

    Service Tax Appeal No. 60608 of 2013- Ex[SM] [Arising Out of Order-In-Appeal No. 137(ST/RPR-I of 2013 dated 21.8.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur]

    Decided On, 18 March 2014

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi


    For the Appellants: DR. R K. Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent: H V. Ghirnikar, CA.

Judgment Text

Archana Wadhwa, J.

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.

2. After hearing both sides, I find that the respondents are providing renting of immovable property services and are discharging their Service Tax liability accordingly. However in the month of March, 2012, they were required to pay service tax to the tune of Rs. 2,96,032/- which they paid. In addition, as per the appellant, by mistake they took into consideration some bills of the service provider and inadvertently paid service tax of Rs. 12,60,145/- which they were not required to pay. Subsequently on realizing the said mistake they claimed the refund of the same. The said refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner but on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.

3. It is seen that Revenue’s contention is that said deposit of Rs.12,60,145/- by the respondent was on account of some inadmissible Cenvat credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that department has not adduced any document for rejection of the Cenvat credit account or no order confirming the denial of the same. As such, the Revenue’s stand cannot be accepted.

4. In the memo of appeal, Revenue has again reiterated their stand without any evidence to the effect that such Cenvat credit was disallowed to the appellant a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nd they were required to pay the same. As such, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Appeal is accordingly rejected.