TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced, it could not have made any difference to the final order. ROM Application dismissed. - APPLICATION No. ST/ROM/85167/2018 APPEAL No. ST/526/2012 - M/85488/2018 - Dated:- 8-5-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Advocate, for appellant Shri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Raju This rectification of mistake application has been filed by M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation in respect of Tribunal s order No. A/88762/17/STB dated 27.7.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Tribunal s order dated 27.7.2012 in para 5.3 deals with the issue of unjust enrichment and records that the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom 2006-07 (from October, 2006 to March, 2007) to 2010-11. The total amount paid by CWC stood at ₹ 1,27,59,926/- including service tax and interest. 2. That consequently, upon adjudication, the said services were later held to be non-taxable by the department and which was further confirmed by the Tribunal. CWC filed a refund claim with the department for the amount of ₹ 1,27,59,926/- (including service tax and interest). 3. That the said amount has been paid from CWC s pocket whereby their income stood reduced by the said amount in the Profit Loss Account of the respective years. 4. That burden of the said amount of ₹ 1,27,59,926/- is entirely borne by CWC itself and that the incidence of the same has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Certificate as promised. No bills regarding sale of abandoned goods have been produced by the appellants. Therefore, it is not known under what terms and conditions these goods have been sold and whether recovery of Service Tax has also been made. It is seen that even at the appellate stage, no such certificate has been produced before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we find that though clause of limitation under Section 11B would not be applicable in respect of the amounts covered by the demand show-cause notice issued to the appellant and dropped subsequently by the Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal, however, in view of the failure of the appellant to establish that they have not passed on burden of any other person, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
