TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 968
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. The activities carried out by the appellant 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during the period of dispute i.e., 01/04/2015 to 29/02/2016, the said exemption from payment of Service tax was withdrawn.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 construct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred a detailed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....) (2) Modest Infrastructure 2011 (24) STR 369 (Tribunal) (3) Nutan Shah 2015 (8) TMI 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dication as well by Commissioner (Appeals) as this is a settled law in the judgments cited below: 1. Prince 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 whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the work under reference has been paid by this department and will not be paid in future as per our contract conditions. M/s Malani construction also issued a certificate stating that "M/s Aahir Construction" has paid the Service Tax from their own funds and have not recovered the same from us. Since the services provided to the Govt., a local authority or governmental authority by way of construction of civil structure meant predominantly for use other than commerce, industry or any other business or profession is exempted under notification no. 09/2016-ST dated 11/03/2016 read with section 102 in the Finance Act, 1994. We have not paid the service tax to the said Aahir Construction and have advised them to take refund of service tax f....