2015 (3) TMI 1050

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt has been dismissed. 2. The dispute in the present petition is as to, "Whether the petitioner/appellant was liable for payment of service tax for the period 10.09.2004 to 31.12.2004, as the service tax is paid in the present case by a non-resident person?" 3. In a nutshell, it may be stated that after a long drawn litigation, by order dated 28.05.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the claim of the petitioner for refund of the service tax paid for the period 10.9.2004 to 31.12.2004 was allowed and it was directed to be refunded to the petitioner/appellant. After the passing of the aforesaid order, the appellant/petitioner filed another application for refund of the service tax deposited....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....but did not grant any direction for payment of the service tax so deposited by the petitioner/appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. 6. We have heard Sri Rajesh Chander Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri K N Mohan, learned counsel for contesting respondents 2 and 3 and perused the records. 7. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that in case the appeal is allowed and the amount of service tax is refunded to the appellant, the appeal filed by the respondent and pending before the Appellate Tribunal would become infructuous. He thus contends that this appeal should be dismissed and the claim of the appellant for refund of the service tax be rejected. 8. The facts as s....