Bhausaheb Baburao Ghuge Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Aurangabad

2018 (6) TMI 251 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Refund of an amount paid by mistake – N/N. 25/2012 dated 20/06/2012 – Held that:- It transpires that at serial No. 25 exemption is granted to services provided to Government, local authorities of government authority in respect of sanitation conservancy, solid waste management – In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the appellant herein has rendered the services to MIDC for garbage collection disposal thereof, it is found that the adjudicating authority was correct in allowing the refund claim filed by the appellant – Revenue is directed to refund the amount as has been ordered by the adjudicating authority – Appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – ST/85365/2018 – A/86259/2018 – D

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

o December 2013, the services rendered by them i.e. collection of garbage in the MIDC was exempted by Notification No. 35/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 amended by Notification No. 6/2014-ST dated 11/07/2014. The adjudicating authority accepted the contention of the appellant and allowed the refund claim. 4. Revenue was aggrieved by such an order and preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority relying upon the findings of the Tribunal in a stay order as reported at 2014 (36) STR 1295 in the case of MIDC v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I reversed the decision of the adjudicating authority and denied refund to the appellant herein. This appeal is against the said order. 5. It was brought to the not

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Bombay and their Lordships by a judgment dated 23/08/2017 as reported 2017-TIOL-2629-HC-MUM-ST rejected the appeal of the department and held that the judgment of the Tribunal was correct by imposing a cost on the appellant i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik. 6. The law is now settled in favour of the MIDC wherein it is held that MIDC is a statutory body. 7. On perusal of the Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20/06/2012, it transpires that at serial No. 25 exemption is granted to services provided to Government, local authorities of government authority in respect of sanitation conservancy, solid waste management. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the appellant herein has rendered the services to MIDC for garbage collecti

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Leave a Reply