9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ro Ltd, [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. Since the disputed period is prior to the date of introduction of works contract services, no service tax will be payable by the assessee. Consequently, the refund claim is admissible on merits. Time bar - Held that: - The original adjudicating authority has taken the view that an amount of ₹ 3,26,770/- has been deposited by the assessee on 21.11.2005. The refund claim stands filed on 12.3.2007. Therefore, the claim will be hit by time bar as per Section 11B (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the period is beyond one year. Consequently, we uphold this portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Unjust enrichment - Held that: - the amount deposited is in the nature of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er held that a part of the refund claim amounting to ₹ 3,26,770/- was also hit by limitation under Section 11B. When this order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), he upheld the portion of refund which was hit by time bar. The rest of the refund to the extent of ₹ 11,38,424/- was held to be admissible on merits but he ordered for crediting the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Revenue is in appeal against the portion of the impugned order where the refund has been held to be admissible on merits. On the other hand, the assessee is in appeal claiming that the entire amount of refund should be paid to them in cash. 3. We have heard Ms. Asmita A. Nayak, and Shri Ranjit K. Ran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been passed on to the Consumer. It is for the assessee to prove otherwise in order to get refund in cash. He has further recorded a finding that the assessee, other than oral assertion, has not submitted any documentary evidence to prove that the burden has not been passed on to the buyers. Even in the course of the present appeal, no such proof has been submitted. They have contended that no tax has been paid and which is not required to be paid, is to be refunded without any time limit. We find it difficult to accept this point of view Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 clearly prescribes the time limit for refund of any amount paid as tax. In the present case, the amount deposited is in the nature of service tax. Consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
