9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/54/2009, dated 25-3-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III by which the claim of refund has been rejected. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is an individual, who occupied a Mandap for marriage purposes on 21 & 22 January, 2006. The Mandap was managed by one M/s. Maheshwari Charitab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Keeper, who are the assessee and deposited the tax with the Revenue and that only the assessee would have a right to contest the taxability of a service provided by them and not the claimant, who is the service receiver. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order upheld the order of rejection, further observing that as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erted, namely : - 'Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, "social function" includes marriage'." 3.1 The appellant further contends that the Explanation is inserted w.e.f. 1-6-2007 had no retrospective effect have been given to the same. Thus, it is crystal clear that the prior to 1-6-2007, the 'social function' does not include 'marriage' under Section 65(66) of the Finance Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be granted to purchaser of flats, from whom the builders have collected the Service Tax and deposited with the Revenue. I further hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) is in error in holding that the appellant is not entitled to refund since the appellant is not an assessee. Thus, the appeal is allowed, the appellant will be entitled to consequential benefit including refund of the Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
