9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,00,000/-, ₹ 35,535 & ₹ 4184/- is barred by limitation. The said finding passed by the authorities below is upheld - Appellant is not eligible for refund of the said amounts - demand of this part hit by limitation. With regard to the contention that appellant has not filed necessary documents to establish that the construction activities were done by themselves without eng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that they have paid service tax by mistake when actually they are not liable to pay service tax under Construction of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service as clarified by the Board vide Circular No.332/35/2006-TRU dated 1.8.2006 that if the promoter constructs without engaging any other person, he is not liable to pay service tax. Show cause notice dt. 16.01.2008 was issued proposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. He points out that out of total amount, the claim of ₹ 1,00,000/-, ₹ 35,535/- and ₹ 4184/- would fall beyond the period of limitation and therefore appellant is not pressing the claim for these amounts. The appellant is eligible for balance amount as this falls within the period of limitation. 2.2. With regard to issue that appellant has not filed documents to support that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Josh P.John and Others V CST Bangalore - 2014 TIOL 1753- CESTAT-BANG to contend that on the similar issue, the Tribunal has granted refund wherein construction activities were done by the builder / promoter himself without engaging any other person. Though the Ld. counsel has argued that the authorities below have travelled beyond the SCN and considered the merit of the claim as also iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority who shall consider this aspect on the basis of evidence furnished by appellant in de novo proceedings and decide the matter afresh as to whether appellant is eligible for refund and also consider whether the case law relied upon by appellant is applicable to the facts of the case. So ordered. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
