9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raiwala, Meerut Cantt. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was providing construction services to Ministry of Defence - MES, Raiwala, Meerut Cantt. under Contract CA No. CEB/MRT/18 of 2014-2015, PROVN OF OTEM ACCN FOR NO. 2 MED REGT at Meerut. 3.1 Earlier the appellant who is registered with the Service Tax Department was enjoying exemption for the work done for the Government Department being non-commercial nature, under Sl. No. 12 of Mega exemption Notification No. 25/2012. This exemption under notification lapsed on 01.03.2015, and thereafter the appellant started depositing service tax with the Department on the said service and also started charging in their bills - running bills issued to MES. Subsequently, vide Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner relying on the report of the Range Superintendent, who observed that as per the ST-3 returns for the relevant period i.e. 01.03.2015 to 31.03.2016, appellant have deposited service tax amounting to Rs. 34,02,766/- and hence the differential amount Rs. 9,88,152/- may be rejected. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner observed that the refund is not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, taking into notice the correspondence with Garrison Engineers, MES, Chief Engineer, wherein reply dated 14.02.2017 was received being letter No. 8511/P/CEB/367/E1 - that there is no objection for refund of service tax to the contractor under intimation to this office against work order/ contract No. CEB/MRT/18/2014-15. The refund of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re this Tribunal. 8. Learned Counsel Sh. Anubhav Jain appearing for the appellant has taken me through all the facts on record as narrated hereinabove. He further bring to my notice that the appellant have already repaid the amount of Rs. 25,39,537/- on being pressurised by MES vide Cheque No. 638611, which has been encashed as is evident from the copy of the bank account on 21.12.2017. He also brings to my notice that MES has already deducted Rs. 9,38,719/- against running bills, and refers to copy of order dated 09.10.2021, issued by the Assistant Garrison Engineer (I), Raiwala, being letter No. 8316/70/E8, informing the appellant that an amount of Rs. 9,38,719/- has been deducted from the RAR/Final bill of CA work against GST. As regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper authorisation and knowledge of the principal (receiver of service). Thus, there is no issue of locus standi. In the facts and circumstances, I hold that the appellant is competent to apply for the refund. 11.1 So far the issue of unjust enrichment, the lower Court has raised doubts regarding the re-payment of the amount of tax, the refund of which has been sought. In view of the aforementioned facts taken notice by this Tribunal, I hold that the issue of unjust enrichment no longer survives, and the appellant have discharged their onus as required under the provisions of Section 12B of the Act. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 43,90,718/-. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
