TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 35F is required to be refunded consequent upon the order of the appellate authority, there shall be paid to the appellant interest at such rate, fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on such amount from the date of payment of the amount, till the date of refund of such amount. Thus, an assessee is ipso facto under the law, entitled to refund on being successful in appeal of the amount deposited under Section 35F of the Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, Section 35F read with Section 35FF does not provide for any refund application to be made by the assessee after being successful in appeal - the limitation prescribed under Section 11B is not applicable for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the appellant vide order-in-appeal dated 19.01.2016 holding that the appellant was entitled to threshold exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST, hence tax not payable. (emphasis supplied) 2. Thereafter, the appellant further deposited service tax of (₹ 72,540/- + ₹ 19,124/-) totalling ₹ 91,664/- on 27.10.2016 for the subsequent period i.e. after 01.04.2012 and they further deposited service tax of ₹ 60,791/- (₹ 28,290/- + ₹ 32,507/-) on 28.04.2017. Subsequently, this Tribunal in similarly situated case of M. Samita vs. State of Rajasthan vide final Order No. ST/A/53436 53500/2017-CU(DB) dated 25.05.2017 held that service tax is not payable by such assessees under the mega exemption (neg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner remanded the matter with direction to examine unjust enrichment in respect of amount of ₹ 1,94,970/-. As regards the amount of ₹ 91,664/-, the rejection was upheld observing that the General Clause Act is not applicable to proceedings under the Central Excise Act. The appellant did not contest the amount of refund claim of ₹ 60,797/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that so far as the amount of ₹ 1,94,970/- is concerned, the said amount was paid by way of pre-deposit subsequent to passing of the order-in-original pending disposal of appeal as required under Section 35F of the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
