2013 (12) TMI 626

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1944, a provision applicable for claiming refund of service tax remitted under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, as well. 3. The appellant was supplied natural gas through pipeline, by M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. (RGTIL). This supply was a taxable service under the provisions of the 1994 Act. The transmission charges payable to RGTIL was subject to an approval by the statutory authority, the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Board. The taxable service under Section 65(105)(zzz) of the 1994 Act was provided by RGTIL to the appellant during April 2009 to May 2010. RGTIL raised invoices on the appellant on the basis of the initial tariff notified by the Statutory Regulatory body. By an order dated 09.06.2010,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ght. Revenue preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut by the impugned order dated 16.04.2012. The appellate Commissioner reversed the order of the adjudicating authority on the singular ground that the refund claim was filed by the recipient of the service and not the provider M/s RGTIL; and that the word 'any person' in Section 11B of the 1944 Act does not include the recipient of a service, on whom the burden of remittance of service tax does not fall under the provisions of the Act. The decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC), relied upon by the appellant to support its claim for refund was brushed aside by the appellate authority by simply obs....