TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Order No. 21772 / 2015 - Dated:- 10-8-2015 - Shri. Ashok Kumar Arya, Technical Member Shri. B.G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate : For the Petitioner Shri. Pakshi Rajan, DR : For the Respondent ORDER The appellant as well as the respondent, both have been heard. The appellant is pleading for sanction of refund in their favour in case of Construction Services which have been found to be liable for service tax since 01.07.2010 as per decision of the Tribunal Delhi Bench in Krishna Homes Vs. CCE, Bhopal. 2. Initially by the order-in-original the appellant was sanctioned the refund of ₹ 20,41,771/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One only) which was not paid to the appellants citing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature of deposits made under protest and principle of unjust enrichment does not apply to the same. In the said decision, the Honble High Court inter alia held as below: 7. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as laid down by the Supreme Court. In the present case, as is evident from the records, it is not a case of refund of duty. It is a pre-deposit made under protest at the time of investigation, as has been recorded in the original proceedings itself. In this regard, it has to be noticed it has been the consistent view taken by the Courts that any amount, that is deposited during the pendency of adjudication proceedings or investigation is in the nature of deposit made under protest and, therefore, the princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the case back either to the original adjudicating authority or to the Commissioner (Appeals) when the Hon ble High Court of Madras has clearly held that the deposits made during investigation or adjudication proceedings of the department are in the nature of deposits made under protest and the principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the same. 8. In the light of above it is held that the appellant is entitled to the sanction of the refund of ₹ 17,13,033/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Thirty Three only). Therefore it is hereby ordered that the said refund of ₹ 17,13,033/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand and Thirty Three only) be paid to the appellant within six weeks from the day the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
