9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , AR Per: M V Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.45/Commr (A)/JMN/2011, dt.05.07.2011. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding rejection of refund claim of Rs.50,000/- which was paid by the appellant on receipt of Order-in-Original No.07/Addl.Commrr/2009, dt.07.12.2009. After paying the amount, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty of Rs.50,000/-. Revenue has not filed any appeal against such Order-in-Appeal. Consequently, the appellant preferred a refund claim before the lower authorities. The adjudicating authority, after considering the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of penalty after deposit was collected from their principle, it is his submission that the letter written to Income Tax department was beyond the purview of the Show Cause Notice and therefore the reliance was mis-placed. 5. Ld.D.R. reiterates the findings of both the lower authorities. 6. After considering the submissions made by both sides, I find that the issue in this case lies in narrow compass inasmuch as the appellant herein had paid/deposited the amount of penalty exercising his right of appeal, in which he succeeded. Revenue authorities should have granted him the refund of said amount. At the same time, I find that the first appellate authority in the factual matrix of this case, has recorded the following findings in Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the Show Cause Notice is issued directing the appellant to show cause as to why the refund claim should not be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 8. I am of the considered view that the factual finding of collection of the amount, which has been deposited by the appellant from his customers being not disputed and is not being challenged by contrary evidence in any form, I find that the appellant has recovered the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him as penalty, from his customers. In my view, sanctioning of refund claim will doubly enrich the appellant, which is not in consonance with the law. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the impugned order which is in appeal before me is correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
