9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is the appellant and has filed the appeal against the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Kanpur whereby the lower appellate Authority rejected assessee's appeal for refund of excess service tax deposited, amounting to Rs. 2,86,443/-. 2. Relevant facts may be noticed. During 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2008, DGCEI initiated investigatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees tax liability under Section 75 of the Act. 5. The Assistant Commissioner, Kanpur by an order dated 27.12.2012 rejected the refund claim on the bar of limitation as well as on the ground that the assessee was unable to establish that there was no unjust enrichment involved and assessee had not passed on the burden of service tax. Assessee preferred and appeal and by the impugned order the lowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest thereon. In the circumstances, the excess amount deposited by the appellant, if refundable under law would be the amount receivable by it, particularly as the appellate authority found in favour of the assessee on the point of limitation. 6. It however requires to be noticed that the impugned order in para 7 computes the quantum of refund at Rs. 2,57,625/- after calculating the amount of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
