9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the veracity of the CA certificate is not in dispute. The appellants have produced the Ledger account as well as Bank Statement alongwith copy of the cheque and Chartered Accountant certificate to show that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the educational institution M/s GMR Institute of Technology to whom the assessees had provided the services - the refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/30895/2016, ST/30896/2016, ST/30897/2016 & ST/30898/2016 - A/30425-30428/2017 - Dated:- 3-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member(Judicial) Shri N.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be hit by limitation and unjust enrichment and thus rejected the refund. Hence these appeals. 3. On behalf of the assessees, the Ld. Councel Shri N.V. Ramana Rao submitted that the appellants had paid the service tax under mistake and that the amount so paid under mistake does not have the colour of tax. That it is merely a deposit and therefore provisions of Section 11B does not apply to the said deposit. That the authorities below have wrongly applied the period of limitation to the refund claim. To canvass the proposition that limitation prescribed under section 11B is not applicable to tax paid under mistake, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgements rendered in the case of K.V.R. Constructions Vs CCE, Bangalore 2010(17)S.T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) that the C.A. certificate shows that assessees have further returned the amount again to the educational institutions. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the incidence of tax has been borne by them. That, therefore, the rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment is unjustified. 5. The Ld. AR, Shri Nagraj Naik, Dy. Commissioner reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the refund claim has been rightly rejected on the ground of being hit by unjust enrichment. It is clear that the assessees have collected the amount from the educational institutions (M/s. GMR Institute of Technology). When so collected, the same will have passed on to the students. That, therefore, the refund claim has been righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
