Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sodecia India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 41832 of 2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/12/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sodecia India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)

CESTAT Chennai held that undisputedly the amount of service tax was paid by mistake and Chartered Accountant certificate was submitted certifying that incidence of duty has not been passed on. Accordingly, refund eligible as not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Facts- The appellant filed two refund claims for an amount of Rs.12,39,386/- and Rs.9,67,149/- for refund of service tax discharged by them on works contract services provided to them by M/s.SRC Projects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.UR Ground Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The said companies undertook construction of some building activities and other civil structures for the appellant.

It is the case of the appellant that they misunderstood the invoice details given by the service providers and discharged service tax liability on the balance 60% of the total amount charged for the services. They paid service tax on 31.03.2014. They later came to know that they need not pay 60% of the total consideration and that as the works of construction were in the nature of original works, the service provider has to pay only 40% of the entire consideration.

On coming to know that they are not liable to pay any amount of service tax on the construction services provided to them, they filed refund claims on 07.04.2015 for refund of the service tax paid by them under mistake. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the refund claim for an amount of Rs.12,39,386/- on the ground of limitation and unjust enrichment. With regard to refund claim for the amount of Rs.9,67,149/-, the original authority though sanctioned the refund, ordered the same to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund observing that the amount is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Against these orders of adjudication, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned order dated 23.08.2016 upheld the same. Hence these appeals.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031