TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a part of refund claim barred by limitation shows non application of mind as it is settled law that if the amount of duty/tax in dispute has been settled by the higher forum as not payable. Therefore, the assessee is not required to file refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellant is not liable to pay service vide order dated 18.12.2013 - it is responsibility of the Revenue to grant refund claim to the appellant 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. Unjust Enrichment - HELD THAT:- The service tax in dispute was paid by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be raised against the appellant and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) and during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has made a deposit of ₹ 8,10,806/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand against the appellant vide order dated 18.12.2013. Thereafter the appellant filed refund claim on 13.06.2014. Initially the refund claim was allowed by the adjudicating authority but the Revenue was not satisfied with the order of the adjudicating authority and filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the whole of the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment and also held the part of refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the buyers. The facts of the case are very much clear, the demand of service tax has been raised for the 2006-07 to 2008- 09. Admittedly, during the impugned period, neither the appellant has paid service tax on the reimbursement of travelling charges nor submitted a copy of ST-2 return. The service tax in dispute was paid by the appellant along with interest and penalty during the pendency of their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the question of passing of tax burden on the service recipient does not arise. Moreover, with regard to the interest and penalty, the question of passing on the service recipient does not arise as none of the assessee can recover the amount of interest and penalty form the service recipient in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
