9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent ORDER The appellant as well as the respondent, both have been heard. The appellant is pleading for sanction of refund in their favour in case of 'Construction Services' which have been found to be liable for service tax since 01.07.2010 as per decision of the Tribunal Delhi Bench in Krishna Homes Vs. CCE, Bhopal. 2. Initially by the order-in-original the appellant was sanctioned the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudication Order No. 26/2010 dated 11.06.2010, submitted by the learned advocate of the appellant, Mr. B.G. Chidananda. 5. The appellant pleaded that they collected the service tax amount of Rs. 3,28,738/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Eight only) from their customers and paid the same accordingly to the exchequer and this amount they are not claiming as ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit made under protest at the time of investigation, as has been recorded in the original proceedings itself. In this regard, it has to be noticed it has been the consistent view taken by the Courts that any amount, that is deposited during the pendency of adjudication proceedings or investigation is in the nature of deposit made under protest and, therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious Courts, which have also reiterated the same principles that in case any amount is deposited during the pendency of adjudication proceedings or investigation, the said amount would be in the nature of deposit under protest and, therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment would not apply. In view of the catena of decisions, available on this issue, this Court answers the first substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
