TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 11B of the CEA will not be applicable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20707/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20031 / 2018 - Dated:- 4-1-2018 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Vinayaka Hegde, CA Vishnu Daya Co. For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of Business Auxiliary Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the appellants have exported the services and paid the service tax on such Export of Services and it is not in dispute. He also submitted that the amount paid by him to the exchequer is a mere deposit with the Department and the Department cannot withhold the same without any authority of law. He also submitted that the appellant was not aware of the procedure of payment of tax under protest. For the first time as an abundant caution, the appellant registered under Service Tax and started depositing the tax which is not collected from the customers. He further submitted that in the ST-3 return also, the appellant has shown the service tax as deposited in advance and the same has not been debited as shown in column No. B 1.9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the submissions of both the parties, I find that it is an admitted position that the appellant has exported these services on which service tax was not applicable during the material time but the appellant has paid the service tax as an advance as he was under the impression that service tax is payable on the Export of Services rendered by him. But subsequently when he came to know that the service tax is not payable on Export of Services, he filed the refund and subsequently refund has been granted by the Assistant Commissioner but the balance refund of ₹ 11,81,804/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Four only) was rejected on limitation. Further I find that since the amount was paid as deposit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
