TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance regarding the fact of excess payment by the appellant. Even otherwise, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal, on 09.02.2017. As such we find no legal justification in the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.ST/51806/2014-CU[DB] - ST/A/57032/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 21-9-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found that the appellant short paid Service Tax of ₹ 1,41,44,005/- during January, 2009 and excess paid tax of ₹ 3,15,62,248/- during October, 2008. In the meantime a demand proceeding was initiated vide notice dated 19.04.2011 to demand the short paid service tax during January, 2009. The said demand proceedings were concluded by order dated 30.08.2012. The said order of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid appeal was decided by the impugned order. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that when the appeal by the Revenue against order dated 30.08.2012 of the Commissioner is pending with the Tribunal, the original authority should not have proceeded to decide refund and to sanction it. 5. The ld. Counsel contesting the findings of the impugned order submitted that first of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the original authority should have awaited the outcome of appeal filed by the Revenue against order dated 30.08.2012 of the Commissioner. We note that the said appeal has no direct relevance regarding the fact of excess payment by the appellant. Even otherwise, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal, as mentioned above, on 09.02.2017. As such we find no legal justification i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
