TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m seeking judicial remedy against such voluntary payment. The restraint on conferment of benefit of victory attained by another would not apply in the present instance owing to the peculiar circumstances. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - APPEAL NOS: ST/296/2010 & ST/32/2012, CROSS-OBJECTION NOS: ST/C0-101/2010 & ST/CO-16/2012 - FO/A/76780-76781/2018 - Dated:- 12-3-2018 - Shri P K Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri S Guha, Dy Commissioner (AR) for appellant None for respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew One appeal of Revenue against order-in-appeal no. 180/PAT/S. Tax/Appeal/2011 dated 19th October 2011 challenge the setting aside of the rejection, and directin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Chennai [2006 (3) STR 321 (Tri-LB)] having taken a contrary view, the respondent sought for refund of the amount paid on 18th March 2007 in application dated 6th December 2007. While the original authority rejected the claim for refund, the first appellate authority set aside the order of rejection and directed the competent authority to sanction the amount if the applicant had borne the incidence of the tax without passing on the burden. Revenue, aggrieved by this decision of the first appellate authority sought restoration of the order before the Tribunal which remanded the issue back to the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of decision of the Hon ble Supreme court in Mafatlal Industries Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... setting aside of that order by the first appellate authority that is disputed in the second appeal. This wheel set in motion cannot be rolled back without chaotic, and even anarchic, consequence. The original authority had erred in taking up the refund application of 19th August 2010 for disposal when the first was yet in existence owing to order of the first appellate authority restoring it. More so, as the restoration stood jeopardized by appeal of Revenue before the Tribunal. Having complied with the order of restoration and taken it to its logical conclusion, the appeal of Revenue in the matter of the first refund claim has been rendered infructuous and we now dismiss it. We also deem the two refund claims to stand merged in consequence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tling the dispute of the tax administration with the recipient of the service led to the initiation of the tax demand on the respondent. What is sauce for the goose must also be sauce for the gander. It would, therefore, appear that the tax was paid by the respondent on the basis of a judicial decision and, therefore, precluded from seeking judicial remedy against such voluntary payment. The restraint on conferment of benefit of victory attained by another would not apply in the present instance owing to the peculiar circumstances. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeals of Revenue which are dismissed. As far as interest is concerned, the provisions of law shall operate once the refund is sanctioned by the competent auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
