Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1008 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - rejection of refund being barred by limitation as well as being hit by unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The appellant made an application for refund after passing of the Final Order of CESTAT, Chennai, which is dated 13.06.2018 and the application for refund is dated 28.02.2019. Therefore, there are no reason as to how the said refund claim is hit by limitation. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prescribes one year within which an application for refund needs to be made and again, which is also qualified under Explanation (B)(ec) to Section 11B ibid. Going, therefore, by the dates, it is found that the appellant’s claim is well within the prescribed period of limitation. Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- It is the case of the appellant that the Duty element was not passed on to its customers, in support of which they had placed reliance on documents like the certificate of Chartered Accountant, Income Tax returns, P&L Account, etc. This fact, though has been considered by the Adjudicating Authority, yet the same is ignored and no contrary finding is given as to the veracity or otherwise of the same, by any of the authorities below - there are also sufficient force in the contentions of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that even the invoices did not reflect the element of Service Tax which is charged from its customers, which were also available with the Department. The Revenue has not pointed out any defects in the above documents and there is also no discussion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the same. The allegation of unjust enrichment has not been proved by the Revenue. On the other hand, in the absence of any contrary findings on the documents, the appellant has been able to successfully prove that the tax incidence has not been passed on to its customers - the rejection of refund is held to be vague and unjustifiable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|