M/S. Krishna Con. Arch Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/85/2008
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a refund claim of service tax paid under the category of construction services is made on the footing that the claimant is a builder who constructed the building itself, the claimant must establish that footing; a bare assertion of it, unaccompanied by proof that the work was done by the claimant itself rather than through an engaged contractor, does not displace the department's rejection of the claim. Where the claimant's own correspondence with the department states that it engaged a contractor for the construction, and the claimant fails to furnish the contractor's address despite repeated requests, the refund claim is properly rejected.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-40/2008/COMMR-A-/RAJ dated 26.02.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot)
M/s. Krishna Con. Arch Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 28.07.2015
ORDER No. A/11118 / 2015 Dated 28.07.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
The appellant filed this appeal against the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 2,97,103/-.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellant during the period October 2005 to March 2006 paid an amount of Rs. 2,97,103/- under the category of Construction Services. The main contention of the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant is Builder and had done construction himself and therefore no service tax is leviable thereon. He drew attention of the Bench to the Board clarification by F.No. 354/28/2007-TRU dated 23.08.2007. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellant, by letter dated 27.08.2006 informed the department that they are engaged contractor for construction of building. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant have not provided the address of the Contractor in spite of repeated reminders.
3. In view of the above, we find that the lower authorities had rightly rejected the refund claim. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free