9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax is refundable in terms of Section 102 of Finance Act, 2016 which does not provides specifically refund of such interest. 2. Sh. S.J. Vyas Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Section 102 though provide for non levy of service tax on the construction service provided to Government department but it does not provide for reversal of cenvat credit in respect of input service attributed to said non taxable service. He submits that at the time of taking credit, the credit was legally availed. The output construction service was become non taxable only at a later stage by retrospective amendment under Section 102 of Finance Act, 2016. He takes support of the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of M/s Ashok Ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit was availed. Though the parliament vide Section 102 of Finance Act provided that the construction service provided to the Government department during the period April 2015 to February 2016 is not leviable to service tax but by the retrospective amendment, the service for the said period become non taxable. Therefore, any cenvat credit availed on the input service used in such output service is also not admissible to the appellant. As regard heavy reliance made by the Ld. Counsel on the Larger Bench judgment in the case of M/s Ashok Iron & Steel Fabricators (Supra), I find that in the said judgment, unutilized cenvat credit was lying on the date when goods were exempted, whereas in the present case, due to retrospective amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucture Pvt. Ltd (Supra) wherein following order was passed: "4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the records, I find that as per Section 102 of Finance Act, 2016, the service tax is not leviable on the construction services provided to the government department during the period 01.04.2015 to 29.02.2016. Accordingly, during the said period, the service tax itself was not leviable. Admittedly, the appellant paid the service tax during the said period and wherever there was delay, they had paid interest also. Since, the interest is a piggy-back of service tax when service tax itself was not payable, the interest was also not payable. Since it was charged and paid by the appellant, it is refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
