At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE ARCHANA WADHWA
By, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
For the Appellants: DR. R K. Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent: H V. Ghirnikar, CA.
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.