2022 (3) TMI 1167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t in the Government Treasury after receiving the same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the above appellant, holder of Service Tax Registration No.AAOFR9732JSD001, is engaged in providing the construction services including commercial/industrial buildings or civil structures, construction of residential complex service,, works contract service. The appellant had filed a refund claim of service tax amounting to Rs. 34,23,741/-on 11.11.2016 (subsequently reduced to Rs. 25,63,255/-) for the period 06.07.2015 to 25.04.2016 under section 102 of the Finance Act, 1994, in respect of service tax paid on the services provided to Military Engineering Services (MES) for the miscellaneous works at various stations of army, across the country. On ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons. (4) That Section 40 of Work of Defense Act, 1903, provides exemption from stamp duty and fees. (5) That they had issued Running Bills in the set format of MES Department, which have been stamped, signed, dated and paid by the competent authority. (6) That there is no unjust enrichment as MES had reimbursed service tax amount, now they are demanding service tax amount from us. They had given an affidavit for payment back to MES, if refunded by Service Tax Department. 4. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held as follows:- (i) The date of allotment is the relevant date of the contract, which is beyond 1.3.2015 and accordingly, held that refund of Rs. 11,32,049/- is rightly rejected on this ground. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... aggrieved, the appellant/assessee is before this Tribunal against rejection of refund for the amount of Rs. 11,32,049/-, inter alia, on the ground that the Court Below has erred in rejecting the amount of refund. Admittedly, the tender process have been started and the appellant had submitted the bids prior to 1.3.2015. Further, stated that the financial bid was opened in almost all the cases prior to 1.3.2015. However, the work order was issued in the matter of all the five contracts, concerning this amount, after 1.3.2015. Thus, the appellant have fulfilled the requirements under Notification No.9/2016-ST dated 1.3.2016, which provides that the assessee shall be entitled to refund with respect to the contracts entered prior to 1.3.2015 a....