9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Department in October, 2004 to obtain service tax registration under 'erection, commissioning and installation' which was duly complied with by the appellant and, thereafter, started paying the service tax from 30/10/2004 and continued to pay the same till June 2007. Service tax on works contract was introduced w.e.f. 01/06/2007 which made the appellant to realise that the services rendered by it fell under the newly introduced service, which prompted the appellant to approach the Revenue seeking refund of the tax paid by it and the said claim was made vide the application dt. 21/02/2011. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the appellant, however, rejected the appellant's claim both on merits as well as limitation and also on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a certificate from the Chartered Accountant and some invoices where I could find that they have not collected service tax from their customers. Hence there is no question of unjust enrichment. The above factual finding, on merits, is accepted by the Revenue without any challenge. The learned First Appellate Authority thereafter rejected the refund on the ground that the appellant's claim was hit by time bar. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records and we have gone through the decisions relied upon during the course of arguments. 3. We find from the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on works contract up to 01/06/2007 and hence, the collection of the tax/duty amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter to a certain period while rejecting the petition for the periods under consideration. The Tribunal also has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation. Moreover, on analyzing the material evidence, refund has been granted for the period October 2010 to March 2011, relying on the Board Circular referred to above. 18. As we have discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the period of limitation would not be applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the authorities. ... ..." 4. In view of the above binding ratio decidendi, we are of the view that the denial of refund only on the ground of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
