2016 (3) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER The appellant is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. P-III/54/2009, dated 25-3-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-III by which the claim of refund has been rejected. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is an individual, who occupied a Mandap for marriage purposes on 21 & 22 January, 2006. The Mandap was managed by one M/s. Maheshwari Charitabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eeper, who are the assessee and deposited the tax with the Revenue and that only the assessee would have a right to contest the taxability of a service provided by them and not the claimant, who is the service receiver. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order upheld the order of rejection, further observing that as th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rted, namely : - 'Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, "social function" includes marriage'." 3.1 The appellant further contends that the Explanation is inserted w.e.f. 1-6-2007 had no retrospective effect have been given to the same. Thus, it is crystal clear that the prior to 1-6-2007, the 'social function' does not include 'marriage' under Section 65(66) of the Finance Act, 19....