9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not been passed on by the Appellant to any other person. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 87705 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/86093/2019 - Dated:- 13-6-2019 - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Tejal Patil, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Onil Shivadikar, Asst. Commissioner, Authorised Representatives for the Respondent ORDER Rejection of refund claim on Service Tax of ₹ 3,11,119/- paid towards Manpower Supply Services during the period from 2003 to 2008 is the subject matter of this Appeal in this second round of litigation. 2. Facts of this case, in brief, is that investigation made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be treated as one year from the date of payment and refund claim made on 10-6-2016, by bringing section 11B sub-section 5 explanation B(EC) providing one year period for allowing refund claim from the date of order of the Appellate Tribunal, was not acceptable; Second, payment of service tax was established through filing of TRC Challan for which Appellant cannot claim the same amount as deposit and not service tax payment; third, without expressing his opinion on unjust enrichment, which was held against the Appellant in the Order-in-Original, section 11B(1) has been entirely reproduced in his order to substantiate that Appellant had not furnished documents or other evidence concerning non passing of the incidence of duty to any other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... test. Payment was made voluntarily but the revenue did not accept it as a clearance of duty liability and in accordance with law. The revenue therefore proceeded to raise a demand and issued four show cause notices. A reading of the show cause notices would reveal as to how the revenue proceeded to demand the sums set out therein and purported to adjust the payment already made by the assessee. Thus, the liability of the assessee was not crystallized according to the Revenue until this show cause cum demand notice was adjudicated. If that was admittedly issued and the show cause cum demand notice was required to be adjudicated in accordance with law, the adjudication order dated 22nd December, 2000 was taken to be the relevant date. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin the period of limitation and as prevalent in terms of the applicable legal provision. At the relevant time, the period of limitation was six months. The period of six months was not reckoned in this case from the payment but from the date of adjudication order. If that is how the Tribunal proceeded and interfered with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was assailed before it by the assessee, then, we do not see how the reversal of the order of the Commissioner by the Tribunal results in any substantial question of law. Given the admitted facts and peculiar to the assessee, the legal provision as it read at the relevant time, the claim for refund was maintainable and was rightly granted by the order dated 8th June, 2001. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
