Appellant wins refund claim for service tax paid under protest on works contract classification.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claims for service tax paid under protest to proceed if the services provided were classified as works contract. The case was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for further review of the contracts and certificates presented by the appellant to determine the nature of the services provided. The appellant was granted the opportunity to present their case for consideration, with the Tribunal finding that the duty payment under protest prevented the refund claim from being time-barred.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Refund claim on service tax paid under protest.
2. Determination of whether services provided were works contract.
3. Bar of limitation on refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant paid service tax under protest on construction services provided to Ghaziabad Development Authority during April 2005 to March 2007. Following a Supreme Court decision, they sought a refund, claiming the services were not taxable as works contract services. The Revenue initiated proceedings to deny the refund, citing the services were not works contract and the claim was time-barred.

2. The appellant presented works contracts and statements from Ghaziabad Development Authority to support their claim that the services were works contract. However, lower authorities found the evidence insufficient, stating the contracts were not indivisible. The appellant argued they had provided specific works contracts and certificates from the Authority, but the authorities disagreed.

3. Regarding the limitation issue, the Revenue contended that a letter from the appellant withdrawing the protest against the duty payment indicated the refund claim filed in 2016 was beyond the limitation period. The appellant explained that they were pressured by range authorities to withdraw the protest, and the letter was not accepted by the Revenue office. The Tribunal found the Revenue failed to prove the letter was actually filed and concluded that the duty payment under protest prevented the refund claim from being time-barred.

4. The Tribunal ruled that the refund claims could proceed if the services provided to Ghaziabad Development Authority were categorized as works contract. To verify this, the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for further examination of the contracts and certificates between the parties. The appellant was granted an opportunity to present their case for consideration.

---