9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2019. In these peculiar circumstances, it is found that since the appellant has transferred the amount of excess paid service tax in the TRANS-1 and same was reversed on 27.02.2019, therefore till the date up to 27.02.2019 there is no cause for claiming refund of this amount. The refund is arising only after the appellant reversed the amount on 27.02.2019. The refund was admittedly filed on 05.04.2019 i.e well within the prescribed time limit of 1 year in terms of section 11B. Therefore, the refund was filed well within the time. Principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT:- As submitted by the Learned Authorized Representative the issue of unjust enrichment need to be verified at the time when the refund is to be granted to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red as excess service tax amount which was credited in TRANS-1(under GST Law). The GST department has taken objection and the amount which was transferred in TRANS-1 was reversed along with payment of interest by the appellant on 27.02.2019, thereafter they filed a refund application on 05.04.2019 for excess payment made by the appellant. By the Order-In- Original dated 13.02.2020 the refund was rejected on the ground of time barred by treating the relevant date is the date of payment of service tax i.e 05.07.2017 under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which came to be rejected maintaining the Order- In-Original, therefore, the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 (363) ELT 1064 (Tri.-Mumbai) C.C. PATEL ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.-2013 (32) STR 392 (Guj.) 4. On the other hand, Shri. Sanjiv Kinker, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He further submits that the appellant have admittedly paid the service tax during the period April to June 2017, therefore, the refund filed on 05.04.2019 is much beyond the prescribed time limit on 1 year, therefore, both the lower authorities have rightly rejected the claim on the ground of time bar in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. He also submits that the refund claim has not passed the test of unjust enrichment for the reason that the refund was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund was filed well within the time. Hence, the same is not time barred. As submitted by the Learned Authorized Representative the issue of unjust enrichment need to be verified at the time when the refund is to be granted to the assessee. Therefore in the present case also though the refund is not hit by limitation but the fact that whether the incidence of the refund amount has been passed on or otherwise needs to be examined by the sanctioning authority. 6. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to only verify the unjust enrichment and accordingly, to dispose of the refund claim of the appellant. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority. (Dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
