9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... war, Addl. Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: Anil Choudhary: The appellant herein provides Technical Consultancy and Management Services. The appellant had entered into an agreement dated 30.11.2004 with the companies namely, United Bristlers & Brushes Pvt. Ltd. and Lazor Brushes Pvt. Ltd. Under the agreement some amount of advance was received. In the meantime, vide debit note dated 1.3.2005, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2005, as per law. The appellant filed application for refund on 29.3.2006. Vide Order-in-Original dated 1.6.2006, the Dy. Commissioner taking note of the facts and circumstances allowed refund holding that in the facts and circumstances, the doctrine of unjust enriched is not attracted and accordingly refund was granted. Subsequently, by show-cause notice dated 29.5.2007, the appellant was asked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner in terms of Section 74 and thus dismissed the appeal against the Order-in-Original. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that in the Order-in-Appeal there is no contrary finding and thus, there is merit to justify the order of refund and uphold the same. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. The Counsel also relies on the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed as refund after repayment of full amount of advance received along with the amount of interest to the depositor of the amount and as such, I find that the Order-in-Original dated 31.5.2006 is correct and as per law, granting refund to the appellant. Thus, the appeal is allowed and Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original No. 65/R-333/09 dated 9.3.2009 are set aside. Stay application also stands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
