TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate order in a different jurisdiction and secondly because the Commissioner (Appeals) is a superior to the Assistant Commissioner. By recording a finding extracted supra, the Assistant Commissioner has clearly traversed beyond his jurisdiction. Similarly, the Appellate Authority was also not justified in rejecting the appeal filed against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the CESTAT by allowing the appeal. No substantial questions of law arises for consideration of this case - Decided against Revenue. - CEA No. 4/2008 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2015 - Ravi Malimath And P. S. Dinesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri S N Rajendra , Adv. For the Respondent : Sri An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing been allowed, the assessee filed a refund claim of ₹ 6 ,31,713 /- paid by them for the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. The Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 03.02.2004 in C.No.IV /9/346/98 B6 ST and called upon the assessee to show cause as to why service tax should not be demanded for the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998 under Section 73 of the Service Tax Act and the interest thereon should not be demanded. On receipt of notice, the assessee submitted a reply dated 18/20.03.2006 and requested for refunds of the amount deposited by them. The Assessing Authority namely the Assistant Commissioner vide OIO dated 17.05.2006 rejected the refunds claim while holding thus: 17. In view of the fore goings the Order in Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is refund claim putforth by the assessee for refund of service tax and the interest deposited by the assessee after their appeal in OIA No.237/2006 was allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. It is not in dispute that the assessees have received service from Goods Transport Operator during the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. It is also not in dispute that in terms of retrospective amendment of the Finance Act, the assessee have paid the service tax under various T.R.6. Challans which was adjudicated in OIO No.2/2005 ST dated 17.03.2005. The Adjudicating Authority appropriated the amount and demanded interest of ₹ 55 ,490 /- which has also been deposited by the assessee. After complying with the requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
