https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756956 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the composite contract for construction and laying of drinking water supply pipelines for a government water authority was not taxable under Works Contract Service under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994, as it fell within the non-commercial, non-industrial exclusion. Consequently, there was no service tax liability. The Tribunal further held that refunds of tax paid under mistake of law were not barred by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the limitation in the Finance Bill, 2016 was inapplicable. On unjust enrichment, it found the tax incidence was not passed on, and directed sanction of refund within one month. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756956 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the composite contract for construction and laying of drinking water supply pipelines for a government water authority was not taxable under Works Contract Service under Section 65(105)(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994, as it fell within the non-commercial, non-industrial exclusion. Consequently, there was no service tax liability. The Tribunal further held that refunds of tax paid under mistake of law were not barred by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the limitation in the Finance Bill, 2016 was inapplicable. On unjust enrichment, it found the tax incidence was not passed on, and directed sanction of refund within one month. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756956