9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i K.P.Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appellants had filed refund claim on 21.10.2007 for an amount of Rs. 10,87,819/- (Service Tax Rs. 10,50,000/- & Interest Rs. 37,719/-) on the ground that they have paid service tax by mistake when actually they are not liable to pay service tax under "Construction of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service" as clarified by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed documents to prove that the construction activity was done by themselves. However the adjudicating authority has travelled beyond the SCN and gone into the merits of the claim and on the issue of unjust enrichment. He points out that out of total amount, the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 35,535/- and Rs. 4184/- would fall beyond the period of limitation and therefore appellant is not pressing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh that the construction activity was done by themselves and that they have not engaged any other person for construction of the residential complex. Ld. counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of Josh P.John and Others V CST Bangalore - 2014-TIOL -1753- CESTAT-BANG to contend that on the similar issue, the Tribunal has granted refund wherein construction activities were done by the build ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the contention that appellant has not filed necessary documents to establish that the construction activities were done by themselves without engaging any other person, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority who shall consider this aspect on the basis of evidence furnished by appellant in de novo proceedings and decide the matter afresh as to whether appellant is eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
