9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh the case record. The refund claims were rejected mainly on the ground that while branches filed refund claim the service tax was paid by their head office. On this issue the appellants have submitted that the headquarter has deposited the service tax on behalf of individual units for administrative convenience and no statutory provision of Finance Act, 1994 prohibits the sanction of refund claim filed by the branches. In this regard it is apparent that all the appellant are a single corporate entity. Further, the corporation has obtained centralized registration at Lucknow from 12.8.2016. Thus, filing of refund claim by the branches instead of the head office is a minor technical infraction which cannot be the basis for denying substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conditions stipulated under section 102 of the said Act are satisfied, there in no sufficient ground to deny the refund. The appellant has also submitted the copy of orders granting refunds to the appellant on the same issue, issued by Central Excise Division Sitapur and Central Excise Division Bareilly. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable and the same are set aside. The appeals are allowed." 2.1 From the facts available on the record, we find that the Tribunal vide Final Order No.72465-72468 dated 23.10.2018 upheld the order-in-Appeal No.37-47-ST/APPL/LKO/2019 dated 31.01.2019 by observing as follows:- "Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order. We have heard learned Authorised Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption. The contracts with the U.P. Government were inclusive of all taxes, thus, not attracting the provisions of unjust enrichment. As such, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly Revenue's appeals are rejected. Cross application also gets disposed of." 3.1 We have heard Shri Manish Raj learned Authorized Representative appearing for the appellant-revenue. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 We find that since this appeal is arising out from the bunch of appeal filed by the revenue against the same Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2019 decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.72465-7246 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
