TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 968
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant under the work order given by M/s Malani construction was exempted under Sno. 12 of notification 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.12. However, during the period of dispute i.e., 01/04/2015 to 29/02/2016, the said exemption from payment of Service tax was withdrawn. Thereafter, the appellant continued to pay the service tax on construction services. The Central Government inserted section 102 in the Finance Act, 1994 to enable the assessee to claim refund of Service Tax paid during the period 01/04/2015- 29/02/2016. In view of insertion of section 102 in the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 14 lakhs paid for construction of building of Institute Of Kidney Disease as sub constructor of M/s Malani Construction. The appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) at Ahmedabad. Ld. Commissioner (Appeal), Ahmedabad vide OIA no. AHM-EXCUS-002-APP-28-2017-18 dated 26.07.2018 rejected the refund claimed by the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal was filed by the appellant. 2. Shri Jigar Shah, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as against the filing of refund claim, the show cause notice issued to the appellant only raised the issue of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the other issues that whether the service is of works contract or otherwise was not the issue raised in the show cause notice. However, the order is dealt with the aspect of nature of services which is beyond the scope of show cause notice. In this regard, he placed relia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I 68-CESTAT Ahmedabad He submits that though the nature of services was not issue in the SCN even though on that aspect also in their favour. He submits that activities carried out is in fact working contract. Revenue authority has also ignored the documentary evidences produced by the appellant, merely to reject the refund claim. He submits that the appellant have provided the work contract services along with the material such as M.S. wire, while performing the construction of activity. Therefore it is works contract. The appellant have submitted by the relevant documents which prove beyond doubt that they had performed works contract services only. He submits that since appellant provided works contract service which was valued less tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Khadi Woolen handloom 1996 (88) ELT 637 (SC) 2. Reckitt & Coleman of India 1996(88) ELT 641 (SC) 3. Reliance Ports & Terminal 2016 (334) ELT 630 (Guj.) 4. Ballarpur Industries 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC) 5. GAIL 2008 (232) ELT 7 (SC) In view of above settled laws, both the authorities who have decided the issue that the services provided by the appellant is not of works contract and consequently rejected the refund claim, is absolutely illegal and incorrect. Therefore, the findings as regard the issue of works contract is quashed and set aside. Now the issue remains to be decided is that whether there is unjust enrichment or otherwise. As regard unjust enrichment, even the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) in Para 10 of his order dated 30.0....