Page 104 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

318 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
The appellant is directed to quantify the demand in terms of the above order and
the same is to be deposited within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The appel-
lant is liable to pay interest for the intervening period. The appellant is liable to
be penalized as per the impugned order, the quantification is to be done accord-
ingly.
20. With these terms, appeal is disposed of.
(Order pronounced on 16-12-2019)

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 318 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. IV]

Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
GURNANI INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CGST, JAIPUR
Final Order No. 51366/2019, dated 1-10-2019 in Appeal No. ST/53312/2018-SM
Refund - Unjust enrichment - Service Tax paid under reverse charge
mechanism by service recipient by mistake - Balance-sheet showing that since
year 2015 till time of filing refund claim, amount claimed shown as advance
recoverable in cash as being paid towards Service Tax - Existence of sufficient
evidence on record to falsify any unjust enrichment - Error by Commissioner
(Appeals) in holding that unjust enrichment on part of assessee without any
cognizant reason - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Ser-
vice Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 6]
Appeal allowed
CASE CITED
Sunrise Spices Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (4) TMI 481 — Relied on ....................................... [Paras 4, 7]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri K. Poddar, Authorised Representative, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant for assailing
the Order-in-Appeal No. 134/2017-18, dated 25-6-2018.
Facts in brief are :
2. The appellant is a Service Tax registrant, involved in providing the
services as that of Construction of Residential Complex Services, including
commercial/industrial building or civil structure. Appellant is also receiving a
taxable service of the nature of work contract services and had been depositing
the Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism. Realising facts they were not
liable to discharge the liability under reverse charge mechanism that the appel-
lant filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 6,36,415/- on 18-10-2016 under Sec-
tion 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said refund claim was proposed to be
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  104