9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en in subsequent years, as pointed out by the Learned Representative for the Revenue. On the one hand, the appellant claims that the amount paid is to be treated as pre-deposit for which unjust enrichment would not apply, but, on the other hand, fails to furnish the necessary documents requested by the authorities who are empowered to look into all aspects before passing an order. This is because the lower authorities have to be primarily satisfied, who thereupon would record a positive finding after considering such necessary documents. This factual verification has to be done and only thereafter can we apply judicial precedents. The matter has to be set aside and remanded back to the file of the Original Authority, before whom the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of demand. (iii) On assesee s appeal, the First Appellate Authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. 156/2009 dated 11.05.2009 set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and directed that the Education Cess payable by the assessee should be quantified for only one year from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice. (iv) On further appeal, the CESTAT, Chennai Bench vide Final Order Nos. 42761 to 42763 of 2017 dated 31.10.2017 set aside the impugned order thereby allowing the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant. (v) Based on the above order, the appellant claimed the refund of ₹ 5,00,000/- which is the subject in dispute in this appeal. 3. Shri M. Karthikeyan, Learned Advocate, appeared for the assessee-appellant an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod from 2005-06 to 2016-17, only one for the period 2005-06 and later, for the period 2016-17 was submitted, by which the authorities below were unable to verify from the appellant s records whether the amount in question was carried over as pre-deposit or receivable in the subsequent year s financial statements. 7. Heard both sides, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through the various decisions/orders referred to during the course of hearing. 8. From the judgements relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the assessee, there remains no doubt that any payment made during investigation would partake the character of pre-deposit, for which unjust enrichment would not apply. But a perusal of the impugned order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
