TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d proposed to be rejected O-I-O No. & date O-I-A No. & date 1 ST/52917/2018 M/s.Khanna Constructions No.49 dated 12.01.2017 Rs. 1,87,808/- 06/2017-ST dated 31.01.2017 540/2018 dated 06/06/2018 2. ST/52918/2018 M/s.Dashmesh Buildcon No.45 dated 12.01.2017 Rs. 20,20,047/- 08/2017-ST dated 31.01.2017 541/2018 dated 06/06/2018 3. ST/52919/2018 M/s. Pawansut Enterprises No.36 dated 16.01.2017 Rs. 29,80,286/- 21/2016-ST 542/2018 dated 06/06/2018 4. ST/52920/2018 M/s.Khanna Enterprises No.47 dated 12.01.2017 Rs. 38,95,489/- 07/2017-ST dated 31.01.2017 539/2018 dated 06/06/2018 2. The common facts of four of these appeal are that the appellants have been providing work contract service t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nct declaration in the affidavit annexed with the refund claim that the amount has been reimbursed to the assessee/ appellants by MES. Hence, the claim is hit by unjust enrichment. Resultantly, the above mentioned respective show cause notices was served upon each of the appellants proposing the rejection of the respective refund claim on three of the aforesaid grounds. The said proposal was accepted by the original adjudicating authority vide order No.06/2017-ST dated 31.01.2017 and the appeal thereof has been rejected vide the order under challenge/ respective order in appeal (as mentioned above) though not on the ground of limitation but on the ground of unjust enrichment to the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and circumstances, where the refund has been initiated as per the request of the service recipient, i.e. the MES, Ministry of Defence itself in their letter No.8000/Gen./1266/E8 dated 27.10.2016. The same was very much annexed with the refund claim. In addition, an affidavit was also annexed with the claim that the amount shall be returned to the MES after it is being refunded. Thus, present is not the case of unjust enrichment. Order is, therefore, prayed to be set aside. Appeals are prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these arguments, ld. D.R. has impressed upon Section 11B of Central Excise Act submitting that one of the main condition for the sanction of refund is that the element of service tax should not have been passed on to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid exemption was recalled vide the Notification No.6/2015 dated 1st March, 2015 whereafter the services provided even to Government were leviable to service tax, therefore the same was borne by MES which Service Tax component was deposited by the appellant with the Service Tax Department. Subsequently, Section 102 as was inserted in Finance Act, 1994 vide Finance Act, 2016, which reads as follows:- "Section 102. Special provision for exemption in certain cases relating to construction of Government buildings. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 66B, no service tax shall be levied or collected during the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2015 (both days inclusive), in respect of taxable services provided to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices provided to Government to remain exempted from the levy of service tax. No doubt for any amendment, which is substantive in nature the same has to be applied prospectively, as it was held by this Tribunal in the case of JSEL Securities Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2007 (6) S.T.R. 330 (Tri. Del.). But in the present case, the amendment was restoring the previous benefit, hence, cannot be held to be substantive. The impugned amendment rather speaks of its retrospective nature. The Constitution Bench in New Delhi vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 2015 (1) S.C.C. 1 has observed that once the legislative intent is clear to give enactment a retrospective effect and that the said legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f India (2) There is a clear declaration in the form of Affidavit as was annexed with the refund claim that since the amount of service tax prayed to be refund has been reimbursed to the appellants/ applicants by the service recipient/ MES that they acknowledged to return the same to MES after the amount is sanctioned and disbursed. 10.1 These two peculiar facts take care of appellants to be out from the ambit of the principle of unjust enrichment. Above all, since the service recipient is none other than the Government of India, rejection of refund claim which is liable to be refunded, but the refund claim is rejected only on the ground that the service recipient/ the Department of Government of India has born the burden of said service....