9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be treated as deposit, ipso facto, and are entitled for refund - This fact is more evident as the services provided by the appellants are - route survey, design, supply of material for construction, erection and commissioning of 33KV D/C Line on Panther Conductor for 2.5 km from 132 KV GSS, Equipment for the work of urban focus programme, equipment for providing HVD/LVD system, etc. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Limitation u/s 11B will not be applicable as the amount deposited is not tax and, at best, revenue deposit. Applicability of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- In view of the work orders, which were issued to the appellants in competitive open bid, as per contract it is clear that the prices are Firm in all respect and Inde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was payable. The amount mistakenly paid was thus a deposit and not service tax, which is refundable to them alongwith interest u/s 11B. The appellant claimed refund of such amount i.e. ₹ 31,50,587/-, paid during the period 2007-08 to 2009-10. They submitted that limitation u/s 11B is not applicable in this case, as the amount was paid mistakenly which was not payable. They relied upon the ruling in 3 E Infotech vs. CESTAT Chennai [2018 (18) GSTL 410 (Mad.)] and Venkatraman Guha Prasad vs. Commissioner of CGST, Chennai [2020 (42) GSTL 124 (TRI-Chennai)], where under similar facts and circumstances, it was held that limitation under Section 11B is not applicable. 5. The appellants further submitted that unjust enrichment is also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. Further, admittedly, the claim has been filed after more than one year from the date of deposit of the tax. 8. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the ld. Commissioner appeals, who vide impugned order in appeal dismissed the appeal agreeing with the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. 9. Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue relies on the impugned order and prays for rejecting the appeal. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that service tax was not leviable on the services provided by the appellants, which was paid by mistake by the appellants, thus, it will be treated as deposit, ipso facto, and are entitled for refund. 11. This fact is more evident as the services provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
