TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not required to be filed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/10363-10364/2017-SM - A/13477-13478/2017 - Dated:- 16-11-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Bishan R. Shah, CA for the Appellant Mrs. N. Nagori, A.R. for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned orders wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned the refund claims to the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a builder and engaged in the activity of selling flats after construction. As per the agreement, the respondent entertained the prospective buyers on receipt of advance and after completion of flats, they deliver the flats to the buyers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the respondent drew my attention to the show cause notice wherein all the relevant documents have been supplied along with the refund claims, has been recorded. Moreover, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined all the documents and thereafter has held that the amount received from the prospective buyers on cancellation of the agreement, the respondent refunded the amount along with service tax to the prospective buyers and no service has been provided by the respondent and therefore, they are entitled for the refund claim. He submits that the impugned orders are to be upheld. 5. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. On careful examination of the documents placed before me, I find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h flimsy grounds, the appeal is not required to be filed. 7. Further, I find that another ground taken by the Revenue is that, the respondent might have not refunded the amount to the prospective buyers and without ascertaining the said fact, merely on presumptions, appeals were filed and departmental officers should avoid such type of actions. 8. I also observe that in the case of Redico Khaitan Limited Vs. CST - 2014 (34) STR 586 (Tri. Del. ), this Tribunal has already taken a view that, in case advance received from the prospective buyers has been refunded along with service tax, the same shall amount to not providing any service to the prospective buyers and in that circumstances, the assessee is entitled to claim service tax p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
