Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1045 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTDenial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- There being no dispute that the stay application in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the CESTAT, is rejected, there is no reason for the respondent-Revenue not to effect refund. However, it is stated that there was unjust enrichment and therefore, refund amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Therefore, the question as to whether the petitioner gained by unjust enrichment is required to be considered by the CESTAT in the appeal. Although learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said question does not arise for decision making, since CESTAT in its earlier order has opined that petitioner was the Consumer and the money had to be refunded to the petitioner, I am not impressed by that submission at this stage, since it may have to be advanced before the CESTAT in the appeal. Revenue failed to make payment by way of refund of Rs. l 5,16,992/-. If CESTAT concludes that petitioner has not made unjust enrichment, it is needless to say that the Revenue must refund the amount to the petitioner and not to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In that event, petitioner is entitled to interest on the said sum. Since the amount is lying with the revenue from 25-1-2005, and the petitioner is kept away from it, Respondent-State is directed to pay interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit up to the date of payment and not at 6% per annum as prescribed by Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 since it is not a case of mere delay in refund. - Petition disposed of.
|