2020 (12) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in Ministry of Defense who is not engaged in any commercial activity. Prior to 01.04.2015, the said service was exempted from service tax vide entry No. 12(a) of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, the said entry was withdrawn vide Notification No. 06/2015-ST dated 01.03.2015 and the above mentioning construction services became taxable with effect from 01.04.2015, subsequently, vide Notification No. 09/2016- ST dated 01.03.2016, the said entry was again inserted thereby exempting the service tax providing in relation to construction of noncommercial Govt. building from whole of service tax retrospectively. In view of this, the appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 36,21,372/- on 07.11.2016 for the service tax paid i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Supreme Court. Thereafter, the appellant made a request to the Assistant Commissioner to refund the amount. The adjudicating authority instead of complying the direction of Commissioner (Appeals) as well as this Tribunal transferred the whole of the amount of Rs. 36,21,376/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund holding that the same is hit by the principle of unjust enrichment. An appeal against the said order was filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the order of Adjudicating Authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) is illegal as Commissioner (Appeal) as himself held in the earlier round that the refund is admissible and the same may be transferr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the refund claim is not barred by limitation and the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dated 12.03.2019 passed in earlier round of litigation was upheld by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue under the litigation policy. The Revenue came with an application for rectification of mistake on the ground that the appeal cannot be dismissed under litigation policy as it involves a substantial question of law, therefore, the order dated 20.11.2019 be recalled. The said application for rectification of mistake has been dismissed. Moreover, while passing the order by this Tribunal on 20.11.2019, the Ld. AR Shri M.S. Dhindsa was present in the court and he did not raise any issue with regard to that appeal cannot be dismissed under litig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, the appellant is directed to provide all the details of the service recipient required for sanctioning the refund claim. If already provided by the appellant, the adjudicating authority shall sanction the refund claim to the service recipient directly within 30 days from the receipt of this order. 7. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. 8. In result, the appeal is allowed." As the issue has been settled that in such a cases, the refund claim is to be given directly to the service recipient i.e Garrison Engineers (MES), therefore, the refund claim is allowed along with interest after three months from the date of filing the refund claim till its realization as held by the Hon'ble....