TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (9) TMI 1395 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] and the fact that this order has been accepted by the revenue authorities, we do not find any merits in these three appeals. All three appeals are dismissed accordingly. - HON BLE MR. P. K. CHOUDHARY , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Santosh Kumar Shri Sarweshwar T. Khairnar , Authorised Representative for the Appellants - Revenue None , for the Respondents ORDER SANJIV SRIVASTAVA : These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.73-75-ST/APPL/LKO/2019 dated 12/02/2019 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Lucknow. By the impugned order Commissioner (Appeals) has held as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax was exempted on such work orders of government. Therefore, the funds received by them during 2015-16, in respect of work orders issued prior to 01.3.2015, could not have included Service Tax as there was exemption from service tax. Thus, the appellants had borne the incidence of Service Tax and had not passed on the same. The claim of the appellants is also. supported from the balance sheet as the claimed amount of Service Tax paid by them is shown as receivables. Thus, the refund claims are not hit by bar of unjust enrichment. 8. The appellant vide their letter dated 24.01.2018 has provided a certified chart showing appeal-wise the GOS ( Work orders) in respect of which the claimed service tax was paid and the Challan de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r after the 1st April, 2020; ; As per above notification dated 01.03.2016 parties have to pay appropriate stamp duty, where applicable, for the contracts entered into prior to 01.03.2015 which has not been paid by the parties. The original Adjudicating Authority mentioned this issue while rejecting the refund claim but the Commissioner (Appeals), in its OIA dated 12.02.2019 has not taken cognizance of this point. (ii) In para 6 of the OIA, the Commissioner (Appeals) has only counted on the submission of the party on the issue of challans not mentioned in the ST-3 returns of the branches and erred in not considering the fact that the amount of service tax had been paid against the service tax Registration No. AAACU3393FSD038 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GOs received after 01.03.2015 but the Commissioner (Appeals) is silent on this point. (v) The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in considering the facts that M/s. UP Projects Corporation Limited, Gomti Bariaz, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Service Tax Registration No. AAACU3393FSD038) had been granted Centralized registration bearing AAACU3393FSD048 issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax Lucknow on 12.08.2016 which included the units of the parties also. Therefore, Service Tax Registrations earlier issued in favour of the parties by the department are void now. Therefore refunds as claimed by them cannot be processed for this registration. 2.2 When Service Tax Appeal No.70547 of 2019 was taken up for hearing on 12.01.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the party on merit vide CESTAT Final Order No. ST/A/71836-71837/2019-CU[DB] dated 05.09.2019. The said Final Order dated 05.09.2019 had been accepted by the Competent Authority on merit after getting concurrence from Pr. Chief Commissioner, CGST Central Excise Lucknow Zone, Lucknow. In view of the above, it is requested to undertake necessary action to get this case listed at the earliest for disposal. This will help to reduce pendency in this office. 2.3 Along with this letter they have enclosed a list of appeals filed by the revenue which were on the same issue pending before this Tribunal for disposal. Sl. No. Revenue Appeal Nos. 1 Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
