TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings, if the lower authority has sanctioned the refund, there is no infirmity in sanctioning the refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20526/2017-SM - 20729/2018 - Dated:- 8-5-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Mr. Matrupsharan, AR For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the department and set aside the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 17.10.2014. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are the appellants are providers of Banking and other Financial Services (herein after BOF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund claim is still open and is not hit by limitation of time. In Order-in-Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not discuss the merits of the issue and the liability of service provider for discharging the Service Tax for the service provided under Banking and Other Financial Services. 2.2 Based on this Order-in-Appeal, the appellant has once again filed a refund claim for the amount paid by him stating that he was not liable to discharge the Service Tax. The lower authority vide his Order-in-Original No. 56/2013-14 dated 24.10.2013 discussed the issue on merits and in para 13 of the Order has stated that the claimant had provided service for which there is a consideration and the same has been accounted in the books of accounts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has passed the Order-in-Original dated 17.10.2014 sanctioning the refund claim along with interest. In the said order, the lower authority has, in his findings, though discussed the merits of the case and held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax, that following the appellate Commissioner's order dated 22.8.2014 sanctioned the refund amount of ₹ 4,83,518/- and interest of ₹ 56,989/-. Aggrieved by the sanctioning of refund by the adjudicating authority, the department has filed the appeal before the Commissioner (A) who allowed the appeal and hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sanctioned. It is his further submission that the Deputy Commissioner has sanctioned the refund by stating that obeying the decision of the appellate authority, I take up the claim for disposal. I have also gone through the order passed by the appellate authority in allowing the appeal. The appellate Commissioner has discussed at length the reasons to disallow the refund claim and allowed the appeal filed by the claimant with consequential benefit . The Deputy Commissioner after following the judicial discipline has sanctioned the refund and the interest thereon. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the refund has been wrongly sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner because on merit, the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
