9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. Shri Ishwar Charan, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is rejection of refund of penalty deposited, after passing of the order-in-original, and whether the same is just and proper. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant have a hotel and is registered under the provisions of Service Tax for Mandap Keeper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94. The appellant then deposited penalty of Rs.5,000/- vide challan dated 25.04.2012 and Rs.1,93,773/- vide challan dated 22.04.2013 under Section 77 & 78 respectively. 4. Being aggrieved with the order-in-original no.61(ST)JP-I/2013-ADC dated 26.03.2013, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST, Jaipur, on the ground that since they have deposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to reject the appeal upholding the order of rejection of refund. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel states that for the purpose of refund of penalty, no limitation is applicable under Section 11 B(1) read with Explanation B(ec) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly been deposited after passing of the order-in-original dated 26.03.2013, no limitation applies. Further, in the facts and circumstances, the provisions of unjust enrichment are not attracted as the burden of penalty is borne by the appellant and has not been passed on to their service receivers. Moreover, I find that the refund arising pursuant to being successful in appeal, is availabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
