9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant were engaged in providing service under the category of Works Contract Service and hold a valid registration number. The appellant had filed refund claim of Rs. 7,82,919/- on 11.11.2016 before the adjudicating authority under Section 102 of Finance Act, 2016 read with Finance Act, 1994 and rules made thereunder. The appellants provided services to Gujarat State Roads & Building Department/Water Department for S R to Gujarat College at Ahmedabad. During scrutiny of the claim, it was noticed that the contract was awarded to the appellants by the Executive Engineer (Road & Building) Division, Ahmedabad on 11.03.2015. As per Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016, the refund is to be all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract which was awarded prior to 01.03.2015 was exempt from service tax. Since the service was exempted from service tax at the time of floating of tender and awarding of contract, they have not included the service tax in the cost for quoting price for the contract. In this case, last date of submission of tender was 10.02.2015. The appellant submitted the tender before the last date, Therefore, their case clearly falls under the provisions of Notification No. 09/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016. After submission of tender, tenders were being opened first for technical bid and thereafter for financial bid. In this case, financial bid was opened on 19.02.2015. The appellant qualified for the above work on 19.02.2015 i.e. on the date when financial b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority and the dismissal of consequent appeal filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not legally correct. He prays that impugned order may be quashed and refund application may be allowed. 5. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue argued that the adjudicating authority has not denied the legitimacy of the refund claim in terms of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 30.06.2012. The claim was rejected only on the ground that the contract was delayed by eleven days. Thus, the question is whether under section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016, the date of contract has been limited to 01.03.2015 or otherwise. In this regard, he referred the contents of Section 102 mentioned in Chapter V (Service Tax) of the Finance Bill 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I am of the view that there appears no merit in the appeal and the arguments of the appellant being illogical and without substance cannot be accepted. I agree with the learned AR that the limiting factor for finalizing the contract in this case is the date 01.03.2015. The argument of the appellant has no force that the last date for filing tender was 10.02.2015 and they have filed the tender before that date and therefore, they have fulfilled the conditions of Notification number 09/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 read with Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016. In fact the contract was awarded to the appellant on 11.03.2015, therefore, they are not eligible to get the benefit of Notification No. 9/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 as prescribed in the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
