9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case are that the appellant is engaged in the construction of flats and commercial property and thereafter selling the same to the prospective buyer. They were paying service tax under the category of commercial or industrial construction service and construction of complex service. It appears that the appellant themselves were not doing the construction work or getting it done from the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining amount was paid by them their own account as certain customers refused to pay the service tax. The refund claims of the appellant were rejected by the original and first appellate authority on the consideration of limitation as also unjust enrichment. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of KVR Constructions vs. CCE, Bangalore rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -III vs. Saralee Household & Bodycare India (P) Ltd. reported in 2007 (216) ELT 685 (Mad.). 3. Learned AR reiterated the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. It is not disputed that the Board has clarified as early as on 1.8.2006 that no service ax is chargeable under the circumstances. The appellant was aware of the said circular. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has to work within the boundaries of the sections provided therein. Section 11B is the section relating to refund which prescribes the time limit and hence that time limit has to be computed. The appellant has also quoted the Hon'ble Madras High Courts decision in the case of Saralee Household & Bodycare India (P) Ltd. In the present case barring an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, the appellant thems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
