TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... simply affirm the order. As per notification no.32/2004 the appellant was not required to pay Service Tax at all when there is no liability for the appellant to pay Service Tax. Therefore, the provision of section 11(B) of the Act are not applicable to this case as held by this Tribunal in the case of Jubilant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (6) TMI 425 - CESTAT MUMBAI). Therefore, I hold that bar of limitation is not applicable to the facts of this case. Consequently, the order of rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is set aside. - decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/2549/2009-EX(SM), Appeal No. ST/214/2009-EX(SM) - Final Order No. 50561-50562/2015-(SM) - Dated:- 27-2-2015 - Hon ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Commissioner (A) who affirmed the adjudication order. Therefore, appellant is in appeal against this order. 4. The commissioner also reviewed the order of adjudicating authority sanctioning the refund claim of ₹ 7,94,490/- and rejected their refund claim. Against that order also appellant is before me. As both the appeals are arising from a common issue, therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal no. E/2549/2009 is for rejection of refund claim on account of unjust enrichment. For that he submits that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is bad in law as adjudication order was reviewed after disposal of their appeal by Ld. Commissioner (A) on 16.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Tribunal in the case of Sharavan Banarasilal Jejani Vs. C.C.E.-2014 (35) STR 587 (Tri-Mum) and in the case of Jubilant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E-2014 (35) STR 430 (Tri-Bom). In these circumstances, he prayed that impugned orders be set aside and appeals be allowed. 7. On the other hand Ld. AR submits while reviewing Ld. Commissioner (A) has examined that the amount has not shown in the Balance Sheet as receivable. Therefore, he has rejected the refund claim on ground of unjust enrichment. He further submits that all the refunds are governed by section 11(B) of the Act. Admittedly, in this case the refund claim has been filed beyond the period of one year of the payment of service tax. Therefore, same is barred by limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is set aside and on the refund claim of ₹ 7,94,490/- is allowed. 10. In the appeal no. ST/00214/2009 I find that as per notification no.32/2004 the appellant was not required to pay Service Tax at all when there is no liability for the appellant to pay Service Tax. Therefore, the provision of section 11(B) of the Act are not applicable to this case as held by this Tribunal in the case of Jubilant Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). Therefore, I hold that bar of limitation is not applicable to the facts of this case. Consequently, the order of rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is set aside. Consequently, it is held that appellant is entitled to refund claim of ₹ 8,26,637/-. 11. With these observations impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
