9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verify its claim and therefore appellant failed to establish that the liability of the excess amount pre-deposited was not passed on and therefore there was no unjust enrichment. This is wholly fallacious reason. Both the authorities concede the position that appellant pre-deposited ₹ 21,38,874/- against its assessed service tax liability of ₹ 15,69,823/- apart from the interest thereo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited, amounting to ₹ 2,86,443/-. 2. Relevant facts may be noticed. During 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2008, DGCEI initiated investigation regarding short remittance of service tax. The assessee deposited ₹ 5,04,700/- on 25.07.2008 pending investigation and a further amount of ₹ 16,34,174/- on 12.11.2009. Thus the appellant had made a pre-deposit of ₹ 21,38,874/-, prior to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no unjust enrichment involved and assessee had not passed on the burden of service tax. Assessee preferred and appeal and by the impugned order the lower appellate authority found in favour of the appellant on the point of limitation and concluded that the refund was filed within the period of limitation. Revenue has not filed any appeal. The impugned order however rejects refund o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point of limitation. 6. It however requires to be noticed that the impugned order in para 7 computes the quantum of refund at ₹ 2,57,625/- after calculating the amount of interest payable by the assessee on the confirmed service tax demand of ₹ 15,69,823/-. 7. On the aforesaid analyses, the appeal is allowed and the appellant shall be entitled to refund of ₹ 2,57,675/- alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
