2019 (5) TMI 1632 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - duty paid under protest - refund rejected on the ground of time bar and unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - Revenue have not placed any ground to the effect that the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in appreciation of the financial accounts or the balance sheet of the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) have given categorical finding that the amount being claimed as refund is reflected in the balance sheet under the head current assets loan and advances and the said amount has been shown as advance recoverable as per the disclosure requirement of the Companies Act. Further, in the account, ₹ 8,40,643/- have been shown as duty payment on account of galleries under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) have correctly determined the issue that the clause of unjust enrichment is not attracted in view of the facts and circumstances - there is no merit in the ground by Revenue and same do not have any merit. Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of refund by Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of erroneous decision.
2. Time bar for filing the refund claim.
3. Doctrine of unjust enrichment and its applicability.
4. Financial accounts and balance sheet analysis.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the decision on the refund claim. The appellant had paid duty under protest during a specific period, and the dispute was eventually settled in their favor. The refund claim was initially rejected as time-barred but was later considered by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 2:
The appellant filed a refund claim after the dispute resolution, which was rejected earlier as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the claim was not time-barred, leading to further proceedings regarding the unjust enrichment issue.

Issue 3:
The crucial aspect of unjust enrichment was examined, where the appellant contended that the duty claimed as a refund was not passed on to customers. The appellant provided a CA certificate and balance sheet to support their claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the evidence, including the CA certificate and balance sheet, and concluded that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply as the duty amount was not passed on to customers.

Issue 4:
The financial accounts and balance sheet of the appellant were thoroughly reviewed. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the amount claimed as a refund was reflected in the balance sheet under specific heads, indicating that the duty payment was made under protest. It was established that the clause of unjust enrichment was not attracted based on the financial records and disclosure requirements of the Companies Act.

In the final decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The appellant was granted the refund claim with consequential benefits, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to disburse the refund along with interest within a specified timeframe.