9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, work contract service and is accordingly registered with the Service Tax Department. The appellant filed refund claim for Rs. 38,62,978/- alongwith the interest in pursuance of the final order passed by CESTAT, New Delhi bearing No. 55945 - 99946/2016 dated 16.12.2016 in the appeal which was filed against the Order-in-Original No. 38/2011 dated 26.08.2011. The said refund claim was observed to be not admissible to the appellant. Accordingly, vide show cause notice No. 3560/2017 dated 08.02.17, the claim was proposed to be rejected. While adjudicating the said show cause notice, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 84/2017-18 dated 1704.2018 had sanctioned the refund claim for an amount of Rs. 30,05,791/- in terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices of erection and installation etc. Also Section 11D was never invoked and as such, cannot be invoked at a later stage. Relying upon the submissions, learned Counsel has prayed that the Order-in-Appeal of Commissioner (Appeals) may be set aside and the present appeal may be allowed. 4. To rebut the said argument, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent has relied upon the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) given in para 6 of the order under challenge. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority below has appreciated that the appellant failed to submit any documentary evidence in respect of the service tax paid by them that the same was not collected from the customers/ service recipient. In absence thereof, the rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejecting the refund of Rs. 3,50,907/- on the ground of unjust enrichment. 6. The impugned refund claim was filed pursuant to the order of this Tribunal dated 16.12.2016 vide which the appeal of the assessee / present appeal was allowed to the extent of non leviability of service tax prior to 01.06.2007 and restricting the demand for normal period post 01.06.2007. The calculation in the initial order of 2011 dated 26.08.2011 in para 46 thereof was relied upon. The said calculation is perused. It stands clear as follows:- That the amount of Rs. 8,71,365/- is wholly been confirmed to have been recovered from the appellant by this Tribunal by the order of 16.12.2012. Apparently and admittedly, an amount of Rs. 38,62,978/- stands already de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
