9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. The said application for rectification of mistake has been dismissed. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- As the issue has been settled that in such a cases, the refund claim is to be given directly to the service recipient i.e Garrison Engineers (MES), therefore, the refund claim is allowed along with interest after three months from the date of filing the refund claim till its realization as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT ]. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 60358 of 2020 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60412 of 2020 - Dated:- 1-12-2020 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 32,70,626/- was sanctioned but was credited to Consumer Welfare Fund being hit by unjust and enrichment. The said order was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) by the appellant who allowed the refund claim of ₹ 32,70,626/- to the appellant holding that the said amount be given back to the appellant who will in turn refund the same to the military or the in the bank account of the M/s Garrison Engineers (MES) Ministry of Defense. The amount of ₹ 3,50,746/-was rejected as time barred. Against the order of sanctioning refund claim, the revenue filed an appeal before this Tribunal and against the order of holding the refund of ₹ 3,50,746/- as time barred an appeal has been filed by the appellant. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rary view which is not permissible under the law. 4. He further submitted that a similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s A.P. Enterprises Vs. C.C.E S.T. Panchkula and this Tribunal Vide Final Order No. 63567/2018 held that the said amount of the refund is payable in the account of service recipient directly and the said order has been accepted by the Revenue. In That circumstances, the impugned order is to be set aside and refund claim be allowed along with interest. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR drew the attention to the impugned order as well as of the adjudication order saying that this refund claim has been filed by the appellant who has failed to pass barred by unjust enrichment as it is an admitted fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for rectification was dismissed. In that circumstances, it is to be seen that whether the refund claim is hit by barred of unjust enrichment or not? 8. Admittedly, the issue involved in the matter has been dealt by this Tribunal, in the case of M/s A.P. Enterprises Vs. C.C.E S.T. Panchkula (Supra) Wherein this Tribunal observed as under: 6. Considering the fact that the service recipient vide their letter dt. 22.10.2016 has directed the appellant to file the refund claim of service tax borne by them and refund claim is to be sent in the account of service recipient directly only. The said letter is extracted herein below for better appreciation of the facts of the case: On going through the said letter, I find that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
