9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime limitation - Held that: - The excess amount paid by the appellant is not service tax as it is not legally payable by the appellant. In that circumstances, the excess amount paid by the appellant does not invoke provision of Section 11B of the Act - the limitation is not applicable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - S.T. Appeal Nos. 724 - 725 of 2012 – SM - Final Order Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sanctioned for ₹ 50805/- by the adjudicating authority holding that for bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable and the remaining amount is time barred. The appellant filed appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the ld. Commissioner also exercise their power reviewed the order passed by the adjudicating authority and hold that the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act are not applicable. He further submits that as it is cum tax price, therefore bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that as appellant has paid service tax @ 12.36%. Therefore, they have paid tax voluntarily and provision of Section 11B of the Act are applicable with regard to the unjust enrichmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is from the own pocket and not recovered separately from the service recipient. In that circumstances, I hold that in such a case, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. 7. With regard to the issue of limitation, I find that during the impugned period the service tax payable by the appellant is @ 10.3% whereas they have paid inadvertently @ 12.36%. The excess amount paid by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
