9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gursahaney, Advocate for the Appellant Mrs. C. V. Savitha, Superintendent, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER : ANJANI KUMAR The appellants have filed refund claims for the period April 2006 to March 2007 and April 2007 to June 2007 for a total amount of Rs. 78,68,626/-. Show-cause notices were issued alleging that the appellants are engaged in the activity of development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen a particular service is not taxable, availment of input or input service is not permissible and consequently, question of refund under Rule 5 does not arise. Hence, this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the services rendered by them are in the nature of 'Consulting Engineering Services' taxable under Section 65(105)(g) of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear from the docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. CST, Bangalore: 2015 (38) STR 771 (Tri.-Bang.) * Asst. Commissioner OIO dated 8.8.2018 in appellant's own case. * Commissioner's Appeal OIO dated 29.09.2010 in appellant's own case. 2.1 Learned counsel further submits that refund claimed by the appellant is in respect of an eligible credit as held in the above cases. Clause 73 of Finance Act, 2010 had retrospectively amended the Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the records of the case and having heard the rival contentions, we find that the issue is no longer res integra having been decided in favour of the appellants by Tribunal for the past periods and by the Department itself in a subsequent period in the case of appellant themselves, nothing survives in the impugned order. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the cases discussed abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
