9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Per: Shri Anil Choudhary This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/VM/363/2010 dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III. 2. The appellant is a buyer of flat from one M/s Joshi and Associates (Builder), holder of Service Tax registration. The appellant has deposited Rs. 2,70,000/- with the Builder on 10.12.2007 as security deposit against paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Tax is accordingly exigible. Based on such clarification, the appellant filed refund claim which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 7.7.2010 for the reason that the appellant had not submitted the NOC from the builder and also in view of the letter of the builder requesting the Revenue not to refund the amount to the appellant in view of some pending case be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lder to file the application for refund under Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 with the Dy. Commissioner (Refund) of Central Excise , Pune-III Commissionerate. In response to the Public Notice, the appellant applied again for refund which was sanctioned and disbursed to the appellant vide Order-in-Original dated 8.7.2013. In response to the notice of hearing, the appellant has confirmed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2014 received through the learned AR from the Assistant Commissioner (Refund), I find that the rejection of the refund claim vide order dated 7.7.2010 is bad in law and on fact and accordingly, I allow the interest to the appellant from the date on which the Revenue received the amount i.e. 18.6.2009 to the date of disbursement i.e. 8.7.2013 at such rate notified under the Rules. Such refund shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
