2023 (5) TMI 608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to as 'the appellant') applied for refund of service tax of Rs. 1,88,463/- on 02.06.2014 paid on services provided by them on the grounds that excess tax was deposited by them. 3. The appellant was issued on show cause notice dated 20.08.2014 for rejecting the refund on merits. The adjudicating authority has vide order-in-original No. 18/2014-R (ST) dated 01.09.2014 rejected the refund claim for Rs. 1,88,463/-. Being aggrieved with above order in original, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur who vide his order in appeal No. 291-293/AK/ST/JPR/2016 dated 28.07.2016 rejected the appeal. 4. Aggrieved with above order in appeal rejecting the refund claim for Rs. 1,88,463/-, the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4.944% 4,02,014/- (f) Service Tax payable 50% of tax leviable 2,01,008/- (g) Service Tax deposited:-     (i) Challan dated 17.06.2013 (3,78,127/-+7,563+3,781/-) 3,89,471/- (h) Excess tax deposited 1,88,463/- 7. In view of above, the appellant applied for refund of Rs. 5,46,865/- on 29.05.2014 and submitted copy of work order, TDS certificate, VAT-41, certificate of deduction of service tax by RHB, and the copy of challan evidencing deposit of above tax. The learned counsel stated that the factum of excess deposit of as well as receipt of gross value against services during the above period is not in dispute. 8. As far as non-filing of ST-3 return for the period from 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013 is concerned, learned co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss. Therefore, in the refund application also, both the service tax registration numbers as AHMPE2813RST001/002 were indicated. 9. Learned authorized representative for the revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the authorized representative. 11. We find that this is a case of refund of excess duty paid by the appellant while providing works contract services to the Rajasthan Housing Board at various locations. We note that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the amount claimed as refund is not substantiated. Further, he also held that the said refu....