2010 (4) TMI 174

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction of residential complex’ has been rejected on the ground that the assessees had not substantiated their stand on payment of excess tax and further on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the claim for refund on the ground that the assessees had not produced documents such as invoices, TR-6 challans. Held that-matter is remand back for considering .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 06.2005 was not available and that part of the claim have barred by limitation and that the assessees had not substantiated the fact of excess payment. The adjudicating authority, however, accepted the contention of the assessees that no part of the claim was time-barred and that they were eligible to avail the benefit of abatement of 67% as per Notification No.18/2005. He, however, rejected the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the amount paid by the flat buyersand service tax is payable on 33% of that amount, as 67% is exempted under Notification No.18/2005. The assessees had filed ST-3 returns and revised returns and have now filed a worksheet showing the tax payable, tax paid and the excess tax paid as per their refund claim. The interest of justice require that the matter be looked into afresh by the adjudicating au .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X