2025 (6) TMI 1736

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 5,92,77,253/- filed by M/s NSC Projects Pvt. Ltd., L-87, L Street No. 7C, Mahipalpur Extn. Delhi, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 under Section 102 of Finance Act, 2016, on 10.02.2017. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose are as follows : 2.1 M/s NSC Projects Pvt. Ltd, L-87, Strect No.7C Mahipalpur Extn. Dellhi Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 (hereinafter referred to as 'the party') are registered with Service Tax Delhi-II, vide STC No. AADCN4958NSDO01 under the categories of Construction services other than residential complex including commercial/industrial buildings or civil structures, 'Construction of Residential Complex Service, 'Works Contract Services'. The 'Works Contract Service in respect of Construction of Go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....= Rs. 5,92,77,253/- deposited for the period from 01.04.2015 till 29.02.2016 as well as from 01.03.2016 till 30.09.2016. (iii) Thus, the unjust enrichment provisions are not applicable to the present refund claims as the amount is directed to refund to the accounts of service receiver from which the payment of service tax was collected for the rendered services. (iv) The respondent had also filed affidavit to return the refund amount to the original person i.e. MES (GOI), service recipient directly or indirectly as deemed fit. Department filed appeal against the said order-in-original dated 28.1.2019 which has been dismissed vide Order-in-Appeal No. 54/2019 dated 19.08.2019. Being aggrieved, the department is before this Tribunal 3. W....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... without authority of law. Principle of limitation will not apply to such amount. Refund of said amount has rightly been allowed. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision in the case of Corporation Bank Vs. Saraswati Abharansala 2010 (18) STR 513 (SC). With these submissions appeal filed by the department is prayed to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival contentions foremost we peruse the findings in order in original (as got merged with impugned order/order in appeal) with reference to aspect of limitation. Para 11 & 12 thereof read as follows: "11 in consequence to the above, a new exemption provided is also provided in Service Tax Mega Exemption Notification (Entry no. 12A). From simple reading of Section 102 of Finance, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pecifically prescribed in Section 102(3) of Finance Act, 2016. 9. We observe that the amount in question became refundable pursuant to Notification No. 6/2015 dated 14.5.2016 with reference to Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 2016. The notification itself prescribes time limit of six months w.e.f. 14.05.2016. Admittedly, the refund claim is filed beyond said six months. Still has been sanctioned contrary to the mandate of said notification. The exemption notifications have to be read strictly as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015 (318) ELT 583 (SC). 10. We also find that Zaigham Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Cus., C. Ex. & ST, Noida 2020 (35) GSTL 401 (Tri.-All.)  has held that n....