9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that under the facts and circumstances as the appellant have deposited the service tax from their own pocket, it is held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not attracted. Thus, the appellant is entitled to refund of service tax so deposited of Rs.11,42,999/-. The Adjudicating Authority is further directed to grant refund within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with interest under Section 11 BB as per Rules - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.51901 of 2021-SM - FINAL ORDER NO.50549/2022 - Dated:- 7-6-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, an amount of Rs.3,99,607/- , which was deposited vide Challan dated 29.12.2007 and 29.03.2008 was also rejected on account of time barred. 3. The appellant has, inter alia, contested that they have constructed single independent residential units, awarded by the Rajasthan Housing Board, which was outside the ambit of service tax as per the CESTAT s Final Order No.2008(12) STR 603 (Tribunal-Chennai),where it has been held that individual residential units are not considered as residential complex or part thereof. They have also cited definitions of Construction of Complex Works Contract Services . Further, they have also relied upon Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 2008 12 STR 603 (Tribunal-Chennai). 4. Ld. Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir Work Order No.4486 dated 5.3.2008, 1193 dated 16.01.08, 793 dated 17.09.2007 683 dated 4.8.2007. I observe that the appellant have submitted copy of letter no.1370 dated 29.12.2008, 1106 dated 24.12.2008, 2067 dated 29.12.2008 315 dated 14.08.2017 issued by the RHB wherein it has been mentioned that P.F., Service Tax and other taxes, levied by the State/Central Government shall be borne by the Contractor himself. RHB will not have any liabilities towards such type of taxes. Further, RHB have not paid any service tax to the contractor regarding this project. 5.12 I find that the appellant has deposited the disputed tax amount, but this fact is not enough to establish that the incidence of the amount deposited as tax for that parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax burden has not been passed on to any third party. 8. Ld. Counsel further relied upon the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No.ST/507/2008, under the similar facts and circumstances, where the assessee has constructed single residential houses for sale under the agreement with the purchasers of villas stipulating that 40% of the works contract tax under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act shall be collected and there was no stipulation towards payment of collecting of service tax. This Tribunal held that under the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly, no case of unjust enrichment is attracted. Where the tax has been paid under misunderstanding of law. Thus, limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
