9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant, Shri SN. Srivastava, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This is an appeal against the order of revision by Commissioner dated 19-2-2009 by which the order of the original authority dated 22-9-07 sanctioning refund of Rs. 3,00,497/- was set aside. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the premises of the appellant were visited by the officers on 22- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -11-2004. Consequently, the appellant preferred refund claim on 25-5-07 of the amount deposited by them on 17-8-2004 and the same was sanctioned by the original authority on 22-8-07. After issuing the show cause notice dated 7-8-2007, the Commissioner by the impugned order dated 19-2-09 set aside the order of the original authority sanctioning refund claim and rejected the refund of Ps. 3,00,497/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred the refund claim on 25-5-07 within two months of passing of a favourable order by the original authority. He submits that in terms of Explanation defining relevant date under Section 1 of the Central Excise Act, the refund claim in respect of such favourable order can be filed within one year from the date of passing of such order. As regards the unjust enrichment, he submits that this was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were raised for the service charges and collected by the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 26-3-07 of the original authority held that the appellant is not liable to pay Service tax. By issuing notice dated 4-11-2004 and by proposing adjustment of the "amount deposited" on 17-8-04, the Department itself has treated the amount only as "deposit". The amount so deposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposit. Therefore, the decision of the original authority holding that the appellant has not passed on the subsequently deposited amount to the recipient of the service is fair and legal. Therefore, the appellant is right in contending that the grounds adopted by the Commissioner are not valid. Therefore, I hold that the order of the Commissioner is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
