TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave classified the services under the category of “Commissioning, Installation and Consulting Engineering Services” and paid the service tax liability - refund application filed on 21.06.2006 for the amount deposited in March 2005 and May 2005 are hit by limitation. Unjust enrichment - Held that: - On perusal of the contract entered with the ONGC, we find that the said contract is lump-sum contract. The service tax liability paid by the appellant is calculated by working back from the lumpsum contracted amount. In short the appellant had received an amount as per contract nothing more and nothing less. When the appellant himself has calculated the tax liability from the amount received from ONGC by working backwards, it cannot be now s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Feb 2005 2,71,85,207 31.03.2005 2. 01/05-06 April 2005 5,22,13,205 06.05.2005 3. 05.09.2006 August 05 67,34,247 05.09.2005 4. 3/05-06 dated 04.11.05 October 05 1,45,38,445 04.11.2005 3.1 It was the case of the assessee-appellant that the refund arose in respect of contract on which they mistakenly paid the service tax liability i.e. appellant entered into a contract with ONGC for execution of job under MSP Platform project and said job is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved in this case being March 2005 to November 05, service tax liability does not arise at all, the question of limitation of unjust enrichment does not arise. 5. Learned Commissioner (A.R.) reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that the issue involved is regarding refund of service tax paid during March 2005 to Nov 2005. It is undisputed that the appellant had filed refund application on 21.06.2006 claiming that the service tax paid by them under TR-6 challan during the period in question is not payable. We find that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel during the course of argument has also taken in the grounds of ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es have rejected these claims on the ground of unjust enrichment. On perusal of the contract entered with the ONGC, we find that the said contract is lump-sum contract. The service tax liability paid by the appellant is calculated by working back from the lumpsum contracted amount. In short the appellant had received an amount as per contract nothing more and nothing less. When the appellant himself has calculated the tax liability from the amount received from ONGC by working backwards, it cannot be now said that they have not collected the amount of service tax from ONGC; especially when there is no dispute that they have received in full the contracted amount. Further, we find that the claim of the learned Counsel as to the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
