9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.2012 for construction for philanthropic purposes, education (non-commercial purposes). The Budget-2015 the above said exemption had been withdrawn as a result the appellant has become liable to pay service tax on the works executed to the Government Authorities under the category of "Works Contract Service." The Budget-2015 the above said exemption had been withdrawn as a result the appellant is became liable to pay service tax on the works executed to the Government authorities under the category of "Works contract Service" (vide Notification No. 06/2016-ST dated 01.03.2015; Accordingly, the appellant collected the service tax from the Government authorities and deposited and also declared the same in the ST-3 returns for the period 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7,682/- under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 read with Section 102 of the Finance Act 2016, to the Appellant with a condition that the appellant should submit the documentary evidence towards proof that the refund amount was passed on to the Government authorities, within 30 days from the receipt of the refund sanction order: OIO dated 28.11.2016, with the refund. Based on the above condition the Appellant submitted a letter dated 09.01.2017 along with detailed statement to the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax Division-II of Service Tax Commissionerate, Hyderabad towards disbursement of refund of an mount of Rs. 9,60,67,682/- to the Government authorities i.e. service recipients; After submitting the proof of disbursement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned D.R. have relied on the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) have acknowledged the fact that the service provider-appellant have passed on the benefit of refund to the service recipients. Further urges that under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, refund is to be claimed by the person, who have borne the incidence of tax. 5. Section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994 prevails over the general provisions of Section 11B to the extent of inconsistency, i.e., to the extent of granting an extra window for filing the refund claim. However, the remaining part of Section 11B have not been modified. The form of applying for refund, the eligibility of refund on merits as well as the concept of unjust enrichment apply. There is no dispute reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th sides. Hon'ble High Court set aside the order and directed a co-application to be filed by both the appellant and CPWD with a direction that CPWD should pursue the refund. Evidently, CPWD bore the burden of tax and hence could have claimed the refund. 6. The appellant or any other person in his place could have, after undertaking to reimburse the refunded amount to their customers, not done so. The modification of the scheme of ensuring that there is no unjust enrichment laid down in Section 11B if modified by the officers can have far reaching, disastrous consequences. 7. In this particular case, events have overtaken this appeal. Undisputedly, the appellant not only received the refund but also gave it back to the customers. Both sid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
