2009 (4) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... its clients, for which they need not face the test of unjust enrichment – Held that - Service Tax was paid under the category of ‘maintenance and repair’ during the period under refund. That Authority examined the matter in length but without considering the plea of the appellant that the cleaning activity was specifically brought to the ambit of law with effect from 16-6-2005, decided the matter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and Rs. 8,59,882 respectively. In both the cases, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondent had borne the burden of Service Tax paid under protest and had not realized the same from its clients, for which they need not face the test of unjust enrichment. 2. Ld. DR vehemently objects the order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that if at all taxes were refundable tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt and equipment with the help of high pressure water jet pumps and such service does not came under the clause of repair and maintenance under section 65(64) of the Finance Act, 1994. When the cleaning activity came to the ambit of law for taxing such service with effect from 16-6-2005, the respondents were rightly exonerated from the liability by the learned Commissioner for the impugned period. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X