2016 (11) TMI 195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mon order. 3.  The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein had filed four refund claims with the authorities by an  application dated 21.06.2006.  The details of the payment of claim amount are as under:- Sr. No. TR-6 Challan ST for the month of Amount Date of deposit of amount (i.e. relevant date) 1. 29.03.2005 Feb 2005 2,71,85,207 31.03.2005 2. 01/05-06 April 2005 5,22,13,205 06.05.2005 3. 05.09.2006 August 05 67,34,247 05.09.2005 4. 3/05-06 dated 04.11.05 October 05 1,45,38,445 04.11.2005 3.1  It was  the case of the assessee-appellant that the refund arose in respect of contract on which they mistakenly  paid the service  tax liability  i.e.&....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rection, Commissioning or Installation" falling within "works contract Services". He would submit that since the service rendered by the appellant under the contract  entered with the  ONGC  is not taxable prior to 01.7.2007 and the period involved in this case being March 2005 to November 05, service tax liability does not arise at  all, the question of limitation of unjust enrichment does not arise. 5.  Learned Commissioner (A.R.) reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6.  On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that the issue involved is regarding refund of service tax paid during  March 2005  to Nov 2005.  It is undisputed that the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ree with the findings recorded by lower authorities that refund application filed on 21.06.2006  for the amount deposited in March 2005 and May 2005 are hit  by limitation. 6.3  Thirdly, as regards the amount deposited in September 2005 and November 2005, they are within the period of limitation. The lower authorities  have rejected these claims on the ground of unjust enrichment.  On perusal of the contract entered with the ONGC,  we find that the said contract is lump-sum contract.  The service tax liability paid by the appellant  is calculated by working back from the lumpsum contracted amount.  In short  the appellant had received an amount as per contract nothing more and nothing less.....