9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner claims to have made use of the intellectual property, being the trade mark of M/s. J&P Coats Ltd., United Kingdom, subject to payment of royalty from March, 2001. During the period from 10-9-2004 to 31-12-2004, it is stated, there was no charging Section to tax receipts of service from outside India. With the insertion of Section 66A with effect from 18-4-2006, created a charge on receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent No. 3 rejected petitioner's refund claim by order No. 54/2006, dated 16-3-2006, against which, Appeal No. 81/2006, when filed was rejected by order dated 28-9-2006, where afterwards, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'CESTAT') registered appeal No. ST/353/2007 and allowed the same by order dated 17-6-2009. This order, it is said, is final and binding. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistered as ST/688/2012 together with a stay application. It is said that the stay application was dismissed by order dated 10-9-2012. Hence, this petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to effect payment of refund. 4. Sri T.M. Venkatareddy, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that in the light of pendency of appeal No. ST/688/2012, filed by the Revenue before CESTAT, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be advanced before the CESTAT in the appeal. 6. Be that as it may, what emanates is the fact that the Revenue failed to make payment by way of refund of Rs. l 5,16,992/-. If CESTAT concludes that petitioner has not made unjust enrichment, it is needless to say that the Revenue must refund the amount to the petitioner and not to the Consumer Welfare Fund. In that event, petitioner is ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
