9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period from 2006-07 to 2008-09, the demand of service tax was raised against the appellant on the observations made by the audit party that they were receiving reimbursement of travelling charges incurred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals), who rejected the whole of the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment and also held the part of refund claim is barred by limitation. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Heard the parties. 4. As the facts are not in dispute that reimbursement of travelling charges incurred by providing taxable service during the period from 2006-07 to 2008-09 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant within three months from the date of the order whereas in this case, the appellant has forced to file refund claim which was ultimately filed on 13.06.2014. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be held barred by limitation. 5. With regard to the unjust enrichment, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order held that the appellant has failed to show documentary evidence that they have not pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order are totally contrary to the law. The appellant has paid the service tax along with interest and penalty. Further, the adjudication order itself shows that the appellant has not passed on the tax burden on the service recipient for the reimbursement of travelling charges. Therefore, the appellant is able to pass the bar of unjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
