9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent RAMESH NAIR : The appellant have claimed refund of service tax paid on the construction service provided to AIIMS, Jodhpur, on the ground that by virtue of Section 102 of Finance Act, 2016, the service provided to government institution was made exempt with retrospective effect. The appellant, after providing service raised bills including the service tax and collected the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the amount of service tax was not passed on. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Madras vs. Addison & Co. Limited - 2016 (339) ELT 177 (SC). 3. Shri Vinod Lukose, learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that once the service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but subsequently the amount of service tax was returned and certificate to this effect was produced by the learned Counsel, however, this is subsequent development. The said certificate was not produced before the Adjudicating Authority. However, the same was produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) but from the findings of Commissioner (Appeals), I observe that said certificate was not consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that basis they are not entitled for Cenvat credit. Since they have already availed Cenvat credit, the same should be reduced from the total amount of refund Rs. 16,14,654/-.
5. In view of above discussion, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand for passing a fresh order.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
