9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior to 01.04.2015 as a result of which the tax deposited by NBCC, which had been deducted from the payments made to the appellant, became refundable. Initially the claim filed by NBCC was rejected for the reason that it had not borne the burden and the claim filed by the appellant has been rejected for the reason that only NBCC could have claimed refund and also on an account of unjust enrichment. It is an admitted fact that after the exemption notification was withdrawn on 01.04.2015, NBCC had paid its share of the service tax and deducted it while making payments to the appellant. Subsequently on 01.03.2016 the government restored the exemption where contracts were entered prior to 01.04.2015 as a result of which the tax deposited b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant under section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 made applicable to service tax matters by section 83 of the Finance Act 1994, had been assailed. 2. The appellant had provided works contracts services to National Building Construction Corporation [NBCC] in terms of a contract that was entered prior to 01.04.2015 when there was no levy of service tax on such services under an exemption notification. However, w.e.f. 01.04.2015 the said exemption was withdrawn as a result of which the services rendered after 01.04.2015 became leviable to service tax. The service tax liability was to be divided equally between the appellant and NBCC. The appellant believed that it was not liable to pay service tax even after withdrawal of the exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment at Greater Noida, Delhi and Jaipur. In the present case, we are concerned with the refund claim sent to the Jaipur service tax department. 5. The department issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the refund claim. The appellant filed a reply but the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim. The appeal filed by the appellant before the first appellate authority was also rejected. The appellate authority held that as the appellant had not paid any tax it could not claim refund and that there were no documents to support the fact that NBCC had not passed the burden of tax to any other person. It is this order dated 18.03.2021 that has been assailed in this appeal. 6. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und observing that the appellant had borne the incidence of tax as NBCC had deducted it from the payments made to the appellant. The alleged ground of unjust enrichment is, therefore, misconceived. There is no factual distinction between the refund claimed at Jaipur Commissionerate and between the Greater Noida and Delhi Commissionerates when the refund claims have been allowed. 10. The finding recorded in the impugned order while rejecting the refund claim filed by the appellant that only NBCC could have claimed refund is also erroneous for the reason that earlier the claim filed by the NBCC had been rejected for the reason that it had not borne the incidence of tax. 11. The appellant is, therefore, clearly entitled to refund of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
