TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the principle of nature justice has been violated by not granting any personal hearing at the time of consideration of the refund claim - in the absence of the issuance of the show cause notice, the refund claim is not rejected. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant has not constructed any residential houses on behalf of NBCC but has constructed Barracks for the purpose of training of CRP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008- 2009 and 2009-2010 on the account of Construction Service in respect of Commercial or Industrial Buildings and Civil Structures , Maintenance or Repair Service , Transport of Goods by Road , Works Contract Services , Renting of Immovable Property Services , and Intellectual Property Services other than copyright . The refund claims filed by the appellant was entertained and the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim is not sustainable. She also further submitted in the case of Sugandha Construction Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) GSTL 399 (Tri. Del.) has been held that the construction activity for Ministry of Defence for personal use of Army personnel is excluded from taxability for service tax. Therefore, she prayed that the refund claim be sanctioned. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR opposed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been issued to the appellant for rejection of their refund claim which shows that the appellant has not been given proper opportunity to defence their case. Moreover, the principle of nature justice has been violated by not granting any personal hearing at the time of consideration of the refund claim, therefore, in the absence of the issuance of the show cause notice, the refund claim is not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice. 8. In view of the above analysis, we hold that the appellant is entitled for claim of refund of ₹ 51,05,157/-, therefore, the impugned order is set aside qua rejecting the refund claim of ₹ 51,05,157/- and allowed the refund claim to the appellant with consequential relief, if any. In these terms, the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
