2017 (10) TMI 808

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tial Complex and Works Contract Service under the Finance Act 1994. Appellant had undertaken the construction of two projects i.e. Muthoot Blue Mount Apartments and Muthoot Green Valley Mist during the period 04/2008 to 12/2008 on the land owned by the appellant and sold the apartments to ultimate buyers. The said activity was not a taxable service but self service as declared under Circular 108/02/2009 ST dated 29.01.2009. Appellant paid the service tax at the appropriate rate amounting to Rs. 8,00,646/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Six Hundred and Forty Six only) [for Blue Mount Apartments] and Rs. 20,022/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand and Twenty Two only) [for Green Valley Mist]. After the issue of the Circular the appellant filed the refund applicatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itted that the appellants are not entitled for the exclusion provided by Circular No.108/02/2009 dated 29.01.2009. He also submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also considered the factum of unjust enrichment and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that the service tax has not been passed on to the ultimate buyer. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find no infirmity in the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has considered all the contentions of the appellant and has given reasons for holding that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of exclusion provided under Notification 108/02/2009 dated 29.01.2009. Furth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rsons, the service provided by them cannot be treated as self service. No proof was submitted to the effect that they had become the absolute owner of the land. Hence the circular ibid is not applicable in these two cases." 6. Further I also find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also considered the issue of unjust enrichment and has rightly come to the conclusion that the refund claim is barred by unjust enrichment as the appellant has not been able to prove that the service tax has not been passed on to the ultimate buyer. In view of this, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the appellant. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Cour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X