TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is held that the appellant shall be entitled to proportionate refund out of the amount of ₹ 11,32,049/- relating to four works, where the financial bids was opened prior to 1.3.2015. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to work out the proportionate amount of refund and granted the same to the appellant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order along with interest under Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.51684 of 2018 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO.50280/2022 - Dated:- 25-3-2022 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Pradeep Gupta, Departmental Representative for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r payment of stamp duty had been submitted. (v) Running bills did not contain the details as prescribed under Rule 4 A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. (vi) As the rates quoted by them were inclusive of service tax, hence, unjust enrichment was applicable. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), inter alia, on the following grounds:- (1) That they had exclusively provided works contract service to MES i.e. construction, repair, renovation, etc. of civil structure as prescribed under exemption notification no.25/2012-ST. (2) That acceptance of tender had been made after 1.3.2015, however, as per terms of contract, if tender received (bids opened) before 1.3.2015, then service tax wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held that admittedly the appellants have received the reimbursement of service tax from the MES Department. Further, as per the circular issued by the Director, Contracts of MES Headquarters, it has been decided either -- (a) The refund is directly credited to the account of GE/GE(1)/AGE(1) after the contractor gets refund processed; or (b) If the refund is made to the contractor, they will deposit the amount in the Government Treasury within 7 days of receipt. 5. Thus, it was held that if the appellant /assessee on getting the refund, deposits with the Government Treasury, unjust enrichment will not be applicable. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal in part, directed that the refund amount of ₹ 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter of 4 tenders, the financial bids were opened prior to 1.3.2015 and the appellant was declared successful bidder. In view of the Division Bench decision in the case of Shanti Construction Company (supra), the appellant is entitled to exemption with respect to those 4 work orders /tenders, details of which are mentioned in the statement of facts in the appeal memo. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant is entitled to proportionate refund with respect to the four contracts. 9. Ld. Departmental Representative relies on the impugned order. 10. Having considered the rival contentions, following the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Shanti Construction Company (supra), I hold that the appellant is entitled to refund with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
