9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and cashew kernel for export and this activity has been classified under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service". The appellant obtained a Service Tax registration and started paying Service Tax from the third quarter of 2004-05 onwards. On 15.12.2008, he was issued with a SCN alleging that the income earned as commission agent had not been correctly declared in their ST-3 Returns during 2004-05 and demanding Service Tax on the undeclared income for the period 2004-05. This notice was adjudicated vide OIO No.283/2009 dated 20.07.2009 and an amount of Rs. 4,79,268/- was confirmed and an equal penalty was imposed under Section 78. The appellant preferred an appeal with the Commissioner (A), Cochin who vide OIA No.TVM-EXCUS-000-033-13-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not submitted the claim within one year from the relevant date and the claim is time barred. Further, OIA No. 291/2013-ST dated 21.11.2013 which has been issued in favour of the appellant did not mention any refund issue. In this regard SCN dated 11.04.2016 was issued to the appellant and the refund claim was received by the adjudicating authority vide OIO No. 03/2016-ST (R) dated 08.06.2016. Aggrieved by the OIO, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f limitation of one year will not apply when any duty and interest if any paid on such duty, has been paid under protest. He also submitted that there is a consistent view of the Court that if duty/tax is paid without authority of law, the same is liable to be refunded without limitation of time. He further submitted that the Original Authority dismissed the refund claim on time bar as well as on the principle of unjust enrichment. The issue of unjust enrichment was not properly answered by the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has not given any finding on unjust enrichment in spite of the fact that the appellant has produced confirmation letter from 42 clients involving 510 commission bills spread over from 2003 to 2013 stati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
