"1 CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. III SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50094 OF 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.266/Central Tax/Appl-II/Delhi/2018 dated 16.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II), Delhi] PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, GST SOUTH, …APPELLANT 3rd Floor, EIL Annex Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066. Versus M/s. INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN …RESPONDENT INDUSTTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (ISID), 4, Institutional Area, P.B. No.7513, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070. APPEARANCE: Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Authorised Representative for the Revenue. Shri D.K. Nayyar, Consultant for the respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.51209 /2025 DATE OF HEARING: 19.08.2025 DATE OF DECISION:25.08.2025 P.V. SUBBA RAO: Revenue filed this appeal assailing the order-in-appeal dated 16.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, whereby he set aside the order-in-original dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner. 2. The respondent, M/s. Institute for Studies in Industrial Development (ISID), was registered with the Service Tax Department during the relevant period. It filed an application seeking refund of Rs.1,39,22,927/- on 01.06.2016 on the ground that it had paid service tax on the following services, which it was not liable to pay:- 2 (a) Online information and database access or retrieval services, (b) Renting of hostel rooms and conference halls for short term accommodation, (c ) Renting of Immovable Property & Maintenance activities. 3. The Asstt. Commissioner, by his order dated 04.06.2018, rejected the refund. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, by the impugned order, set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed this appeal before us. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection that in the Review Order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was no direction to the Asstt. Commissioner to file this appeal and, therefore, the appeal could not be considered. 6. We have carefully gone through the Review Order at pages 10 to 16 of the appeal. We have also called for a copy of the file of the Department and examined it. Relevant part of the Review Order states as follows:- “10. Accordingly, the Committee of Principal Commissioners/Commissioners, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 2A of Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, decides to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. i. For modifying/setting aside the Order-in-Appeal No.266/Central Tax/Appl/II/Delhi/2018 dated 16.10.2018. ii. for any other order as the Hon'ble CESTAT may deem fit and appropriate. Sd/- Sd/- (Pramod Kumar) (Krishna A. Mishra) Commissioner Commissioner GST Delhi East Commissionerate GST Delhi East Commissionerate 3 To, The Assistant Commissioner, Division –Vasanj Kunj, Goods & Service Tax, Delhi South, New Delhi. With a direction to file an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT.” 7. We find that the Committee of Commissioners had issued an order to the Asstt.Commissioner with a specific direction to file an appeal before this Tribunal. Therefore, we dismiss the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent. 8. We have heard learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 9. We find from the records that the relevant period of dispute is May 2015 to April 2016. The provisions of Chapter-V of Finance Act, 1994 were amended significantly w.e.f. 01.06.2012. Before this date, service tax was levied only on taxable services provided as per Section 66 of the Finance Act. From 01.06.2012, service tax became payable on all services under Section 66B of the Finance Act except those services, which are specified in the Negative List under Section 66 D of the Finance Act. Therefore, before 2012, service tax could be levied only when one rendered a taxable service as per Finance Act. After 2012, service tax was leviable on any service rendered unless it was listed in the Negative List of Services. 10. Since the refund application pertains to post-2012 period, the provisions of Finance Act applicable to the relevant period should have been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). After carefully going through the entire order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that he had considered the provisions of the pre-2012 regime. 4 11. According to the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, is not correct. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that even though the entire period is of post-2012, the Commissioner (Appeals) could examine the matter as per the pre-2012 provisions since those provisions were not specifically repealed in the Finance Act. 12. We have considered the submissions. The question of taxability or refund can only be considered in terms of the provisions relevant to the period. A service will not become either taxable or exempted simply because it was taxable or exempted at the some time in the past. 13. It is also not clear from the impugned order as to how the assessments were done and if they were modified before the refund application was filed by the respondent. 14. In view of the above, we find this to be a fit case to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the entire matter afresh as per the provisions applicable to the relevant period. 15. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals). [Order pronounced on 25th August, 2025] (BINU TAMTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (P. V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ckp. "