9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised doubts regarding the re-payment of the amount of tax, the refund of which has been sought. In view of the facts taken notice by this Tribunal, the issue of unjust enrichment no longer survives, and the appellant have discharged their onus as required under the provisions of Section 12B of the Act. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to refund of the amount of ₹ 43,90,718/-. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50261 of 2021-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 52110/2021 - Dated:- 14-12-2021 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Anubhav Jain, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ravi Kapur, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their contractors to apply for refund of the tax paid for the intervening period, particularly stipulating there in clause (e) and clause (g) as follows:- (e) The contractor who fails to process refund with Service Tax Deptt. Within the time limit, shall be responsible for the consequences, Deptt. Shall recover the Service Tax amount reimbursed to him from any amount payable to him and if not available then through MRO. (g) Service Tax deptt. Generally completes the refund process within three months. Hence in case refund is not recd. By GE/GE(I)/ AGE(I) in three months, the amount of refund shall be withheld from any payment due to the contractor which shall be subsequently released as and when the refund amount is recd. By the GE/G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the respondent assessee did not have locus standi to apply for refund and it was only the Ministry of Defence, MES who were entitled to refund claim, as they have borne the incidence to tax, referring to Section 11B of the Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner directed for recovery of refund already sanctioned. Further, he was pleased to remand the refund matter to the Adjudicating Authority for denovo adjudication particularly with regard to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 6. In the second round of litigation vide the order-in-original dated 07.11.2019, the Assistant Commissioner was pleased to reject the refund claim, both on the ground for unjust enrichment as well as locus standi and directed the appellant to depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work. Learned Counsel mentions that the said amount is also likely to be recovered and refers to further letter dated 26.08.2021 issued by the GE (P) No. 2, MES Meerut being letter No.8511/P/CEB/1056/E8, wherein the appellant has been directed to deposit the balance amount of ₹ 8,76,960/- in the Government Treasury, only thereafter their FD lying with the MES for ₹ 10 lakhs shall be released. 9. In this view of the matter, learned Counsel urges that the issue of locus standi and the issue of unjust enrichment both do not survive and the appellant has been properly authorised by the Principal - Ministry of Defence, MES to take refund from the Service Tax Department as their duly authorised representative, under the Military co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
