2019 (11) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing output services has not been disputed and the service tax paid at the landlord s end for renting of immovable property service is also not disputed - the rejection of the refund on the ground of non-registration of the other floors within the same building is set aside. Rejection of refund in respect of certain activities on the ground of non-production of invoices - HELD THAT:- The case remanded back to the original authority to quantify the refund on the basis of the documents which may be produced by the appellant and thereafter, decide the refund. The appeal is partially allowed and the matter is remanded back to the original authority for the purpose of verification of the refund claim on the basis of the documents which may .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner (A) who vide the impugned order partially allowed the appeal and hence, the present appeals. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the refund is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the period involved in present appeals is October 2016 to December 2016 and January 2017 to March 2017 and the amount involved is ₹ 67,068/- and ₹ 2,28,081/- respectively for the said period. He further submitted that while rejecting the refund relating to Renting of Immovable Prop .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere utilized by the appellant for providing output service and the input services had suffered service tax at the landlord s end. He further submitted that when there is no dispute regarding the availment of services and its utilization for rendering output service, then the denial of refund merely on the ground of non-registration is not sustainable in law. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. vs. CST: 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.) CCE, Noida vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.: 2017 (62) STR 487 (Tri.-All.) GE India Exports (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (44) STR 693 (Tri.-Hyd.) He also submitted that as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X