https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251571 Before 01.07.2010, construction of residential flats by a builder for individual buyers was not covered by the taxable service as then defined, because the later explanation expanding the levy was prospective only. Refund claims for tax collected in that period were, however, required to follow the statutory refund framework under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to service tax, and could not bypass its limitation. Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994 was treated as inapplicable to such self-assessed and paid amounts. For unjust enrichment, relevant proof could include the sale deed, tax payment evidence, encumbrance certificate, and undertaking; absence of a bill or invoice alone would not defeat the claim. en-us Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251571 Before 01.07.2010, construction of residential flats by a builder for individual buyers was not covered by the taxable service as then defined, because the later explanation expanding the levy was prospective only. Refund claims for tax collected in that period were, however, required to follow the statutory refund framework under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to service tax, and could not bypass its limitation. Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994 was treated as inapplicable to such self-assessed and paid amounts. For unjust enrichment, relevant proof could include the sale deed, tax payment evidence, encumbrance certificate, and undertaking; absence of a bill or invoice alone would not defeat the claim. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251571