9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n no refund is granted within three months of the date of application seeking refund. This Bench in its order in the first round of litigation in V PETER VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUVANTHAPURAM [ 2020 (2) TMI 46 - CESTAT BANGALORE] which has also admittedly attained finality with the Revenue accepting the same. This Bench had clearly observed that there was a letter dated 25/11/2005 filed by the appellant stating that the service tax was being remitted under protest, which was sufficient to take the appellant s case within the time embargo placed under Section 11B ibid. There was also a clear finding by this Bench that the appellant had not collected the service tax and hence, question of unjust enrichmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is made to bear the additional taxes in order to get the interest which is legally due to him. The appellant despite getting a favourable order by this Bench vide Final Order No. 20068/2020 passed on 27/01/2020 in the first round of litigation wherein his appeal came to be allowed with consequential relief, if any , the Deputy Commissioner passed only a consequential order noting the above clear direction of this Bench but, however, for the reasons best known to him, chose to sanction refund alone and thereby ignoring consequential relief, if any portion, the reasons for which has not been brought on record, which remains conspicuous. The above consequential order is passed when the Revenue chose not to file any appeal against the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich has also admittedly attained finality with the Revenue accepting the same. This Bench had clearly observed that there was a letter dated 25/11/2005 filed by the appellant stating that the service tax was being remitted under protest, which was sufficient to take the appellant s case within the time embargo placed under Section 11B ibid. There was also a clear finding by this Bench that the appellant had not collected the service tax and hence, question of unjust enrichment would not be applicable. It is as per the above Order-in-Appeal that the appellant became entitled to refund since it was held in the said Order-in-Appeal that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax as commission agent for buying and selling of raw cashew an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
