9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of Commissioner (Appeals) stands modified to the effect that instead of ₹ 5,06,280/- to Government exchequer and attributing ₹ 3,50,907/- to unjust enrichment, the total refund claim of ₹ 8,57,187/- stands rejected - Appeal dismissed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 52248 of 2019-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 51579/2021 - Dated:- 18-6-2021 - MS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Alok Kumar Kothari, Advocate for the appellant Shri P. Juneja, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The present appeal is assailed out of Order-in-Appeal No. 202/2019 dated 28.05.2019. The relevant factual matrix for the appeal is that the appellant is engaged in providing service under the category of construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. 3. It is submitted on behalf of learned Counsel for the appellant that initially a show cause notice was served upon the appellant in the year 2010 raising a demand of service tax of more than ₹ 1 crore for the period from 01.10.2004 to 31.03.2009 for the Construction of Services‟ being provided by the appellant. It is submitted that after the Larger Bench decision in Larsen Toubro case reported at 2015-TIOL-187-SC this Tribunal confirmed the demand only for the period post 01.06.2007. There is no evidence for unjust enrichment on record based whereupon the refund of ₹ 3,50,907/- has been rejected. The order of said rejection is therefore liable to be set aside also for the reason that amount initially was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of Rs. 30.05.791/- was rejected, ₹ 8,01,765/- were already deposited by the appellant vide various challans even prior to the issuance of the show cause notice of April, 2010. After the said decision the appellant deposited the remaining amount of said confirmed demand i.e. ₹ 30,05,791/- vide various challans. However, this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 55945-55946 dated 16.12.2016 while allowing the appeal had restricted the demand for the normal period post 01.06.2007 and penalties imposed were also set aside. It is consequent to said order that the refund claim in question was filed by the appellant and the impugned show cause notice dated 08.02.2018 was issued proposing the rejection thereof. The original Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the order, to arrive at the value of ₹ 5.06.280/-. Though the calculation arrived at in the order dated 26.08.2011 in para 46 thereof was relied upon by this Tribunal in its order dated 16.12.2012. There is no explanation of the specific documentary evidence which reveal that ₹ 3,50,907/- is an unjust enrichment to the appellant. 7. From the above facts, it stands abundantly clear that an amount of ₹ 8,01,765/- is the confirmed liability of the appellant in terms of order dated 16.12.2012. The refund to that extent plus interest of ₹ 55,422/- thereupon is therefore liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant is not entitled for any refund claim post the sanction of refund of ₹ 30,55 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
