9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e refund claimed through claim dated 24/04/14 is partly hit by time bar and the lower authority rejected the claim of ₹ 6,36,943/- this merits no interference and is upheld. Unjust enrichment - Held that: - From the certificate dated 10/07/2014 issued by their CA, it is evident that the refund amount has not been retained by the appellant. The University has also confirmed having recovere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r service was exempted vide Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20/06/2012 and paid total Service Tax of ₹ 15,98,094. Upon realization of the fact that they have paid Service Tax which was not required to be paid, they filed refund claim on 24/04/2014. Out of the refund claim, the lower Authorities held that an amount of ₹ 6,36,943/- was hit by time bar since the refund claim was filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 9,96,450/- was recovered from the appellant towards Service Tax which was not liable to be paid. She also brought to the notice that their CA has also certified vide Certificate dated 10/07/2014 that the amount of refund has not been collected by them from the University. As such she submitted that the amount of refund may be ordered to be paid to them in cash rather than the Consumer W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund for failure to satisfy the test of unjust enrichment. 6. From the certificate dated 10/07/2014 issued by their CA, it is evident that the refund amount has not been retained by the appellant. The University has also confirmed having recovered the amount back from the appellant. As such I am of the view that the appellant has succeeded in convincing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
