2019 (6) TMI 960

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x registrant, providing Renting of Immovable Property Service. The appellant had filed a refund claim application of Rs. 8,95,722/- on 31.03.2014 on account of excess payment of Service Tax during the year 2012-13. The said refund claim was rejected as time barred vide Order-in-Original No.36/ST/2014 (Refund) dated 21.08.2014. On filing appeal against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the said appeal and directed the original authority to decide the claim afresh on merits. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has taken the case afresh and rejected the refund claim vide Order-in-Original No.34/ST/2017 (Refund) dated 28.04.2017. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant had filed appeal before the Commissioner. He further submitted that the Commissioner vide order dated 11.10.2018 has rejected the appeal and confirmed the demand of Service Tax on notional interest on security deposit. He further submitted that against the decision of the Commissioner dated 11.10.2018 regarding the demand of Service Tax on notional interest on security deposit, the appellant had filed Writ Petition No.41160/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala which is pending for disposal. He also submitted that the impugned order rejecting refund claim on the sole ground that the demand of Service Tax on notional interest was confirmed vide Order-in-Appeal dated 11.10.2018 is not sustainable in law. It is his further submis....