2017 (11) TMI 296 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of the service tax paid - denial on the ground of time bar and also for not producing the sufficient document - Held that - this case needs to be remanded to the original authority as has been done earlier in identical cases JOSH P JOHN AND OTHERS Versus CST, BANGALORE AND OTHERS 2014 (9) TMI 597 - CESTAT BANGALORE - this case also needs to be remanded to the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against common impugned order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Commissioner (A) rejecting 186 appeals. Common issue in all six appeals regarding refund of service tax charged and collected by developer for construction of residential complex service.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to six appeals filed against a common impugned order by the Commissioner (A) rejecting 186 appeals. The issue common to all appeals involves the refund of service tax charged and collected by a developer for construction of a residential complex service. The appellant in one of the appeals had purchased a residential apartment from a developer who charged service tax apart from the cost of the building. The appellant sought a refund after the developer informed them that the service tax had been passed on to the buyer and could not be claimed due to unjust enrichment. The appellant's refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (A), leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that previous Tribunal decisions on similar facts supported their entitlement to the refund, which was rejected based on time bar and lack of sufficient documentation. The appellant cited Circular No.108/02/2009-ST dated 29.1.2009 in support of their case. The learned AR conceded that the case should be remanded to the original authority, citing previous Tribunal orders in similar cases for remand.

The Tribunal, after reviewing the decisions cited by the AR, agreed that the case needed to be remanded to the original authority. Referring to a Division Bench direction in a previous decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded all six appeals to the original authority. The original authority was directed to decide the refund claims within three months from the date of receipt of the order, considering the Tribunal's judgment.

In conclusion, all six appeals were allowed by way of remand, with the original authority instructed to reconsider the refund claims within three months in line with the Tribunal's directions. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 13/06/2017 by Shri S.S. Garg, Judicial Member.