9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein it was held that if an amount paid by assessee to Revenue considering Service Tax, it is to be treated as deposit at the hands of Government and over such amount limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, does not apply. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/70205/-2018-EX[SM] - A/71086/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 11-5-2018 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri A. P. Mathur, Advocate for Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi. Assistant Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 211-ST/APPL-LKO/LKO/2017 dated 06/09/2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) GST Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause as to why the said refund application should not be rejected. The said claim was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 23/05/2016, wherein the Original Authority has held that the refund claim was hit by limitation and therefore, rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), which was decided through impugned Order-in-Appeal. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that out of the claim of refund ₹ 2,49,450/- were barred by limitation and the entire refund claim was hit by bar of unjust enrichment for the reason that the appellants, neither at the stage of adjudication proceedings nor at the appeal stage could prove by any documentary evidence that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of K.V.R. Constructions Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore reported at 2010 (17) S.T.R. 6 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that if an amount paid by assessee to Revenue considering Service Tax, it is to be treated as deposit at the hands of Government and over such amount limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, does not apply. 4. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I find that the contentions raised by ld. Counsel for the appellant are sustainable in law. I, therefore, hold that impugned Order-in-Appeal is not sustainable and appellants are entitled to avail refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
