TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Whether the refund claim of Service Tax paid is hit by time bar and/or unjust enrichment. 3. Whether the appellant's service is covered under Work Contract service. If so, whether it is taxable prior to 01.06.2007. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, they filed a written submission vide their letter dated 28.08.2018 and requested to decide the matter on merits. They also relied upon the following judgments: (1) CCE Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 2006 (75) RLT 56 (CESTAT) (2) Laxmi Board & Paper Mills Ltd. Vs CCE 2007 (208) ELT 384 (T) (3) CCE Vs. Mehra Ferro Alloys 2001 (137) ELT 1420 (T) (4) Rotogravurs Vs. UOI 1992 (57) ELT 407 (Bom.) (5) Indian Pistons Ltd. Vs. CCE 1990 (46) ELT 3 (SC) (6) STI Sanoh India Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this particular service i.e., Erection, Commissioning or Installation of structures was specifically incorporated in the definition of Erection, Commissioning or Installation service with effect from 01/05/2006. Therefore, it is clear that this service was not covered under the definition of Erection, Commissioning or Installation prior to 01/05/2006. Therefore, the same was not taxable under this particular head. We also find that the appellant have made a submission that their service being a turnkey project is covered under Works Contract Service which became taxable only with effect from 01/06/2007. However, in this regard, the lower authority has rejected the plea of the appellant on the ground that no proof was given in their claim o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red. We do not agree with this proposition for the reason that protest is only an expression of protest which once raised on a particular issue, it will continue till the dispute is settled. Therefore, once a letter dated 14/10/2005 was filed towards the payment of Service Tax under protest, in our considerate view, the protest was in continuation and whatever Service Tax was paid, that will be treated as under protest. Accordingly, time bar will not apply in this case. As regard unjust enrichment, we find that the appellant's claim is that since the Service Tax was not paid by their Service Recipient, there is no unjust enrichment. In this regard we are of the view that this alone is not sufficient to prove that the incidence of refund cla....