2015 (11) TMI 343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Pakshi Rajan, DR : For the Respondent ORDER The appellant as well as the respondent, both have been heard. The appellant is pleading for sanction of refund in their favour in case of 'Construction Services' which have been found to be liable for service tax since 01.07.2010 as per decision of the Tribunal Delhi Bench in Krishna Homes Vs. CCE, Bhopal. 2. Initially by the order-in-origina....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner of Service Tax, Bangalores Review Adjudication Order No. 26/2010 dated 11.06.2010, submitted by the learned advocate of the appellant, Mr. B.G. Chidananda. 5. The appellant pleaded that they collected the service tax amount of Rs. 3,28,738/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Eight only) from their customers and paid the same accordingly to the excheq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecords, it is not a case of refund of duty. It is a pre-deposit made under protest at the time of investigation, as has been recorded in the original proceedings itself. In this regard, it has to be noticed it has been the consistent view taken by the Courts that any amount, that is deposited during the pendency of adjudication proceedings or investigation is in the nature of deposit made under pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) ELT A159 (SC)). There are also very many judgments of various Courts, which have also reiterated the same principles that in case any amount is deposited during the pendency of adjudication proceedings or investigation, the said amount would be in the nature of deposit under protest and, therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment would not apply. In view of the catena of decisions, available....