Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 806 - CESTAT BANGALORERefund of pre-deposit - overlapping period in the show-cause notice and the demand for the overlapping period as well - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - payment made prior to the filing of the first appeal - validity of retention of extra amount by Revenue - HELD THAT:- The Order-in-Appeal dt. 27/02/2017 wherein the demand was directed to be restricted to 2008-09 alone has become final with both the Revenue as well as the appellant accepting the same and hence, the same would be binding on both. When the demand is restricted to 2008-09, the predeposit, if any, cannot be calculated against the original demand including overlapping period and hence, 7.5% should be worked out of the demand calculated, being ₹ 4,06,391/- alone. Secondly, when the adjudicating authority accepts the claim of the appellant and allowed a partial refund, different reason or logic cannot be adopted for rejecting the other part of the same predeposit, that is to say, there cannot be two yardsticks for the same issue. Further, the payment here is undoubtedly made prior to the filing of the first appeal and hence, it satisfies the purpose of predeposit as having met by the appellant. Retention of extra amount by Revenue - HELD THAT:- Since in the first place, the collection of tax itself can happen with the authority of law and hence for retaining any extra penny also, the same should be authorised by law. Both rejection and retention are without authority of law and hence the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|