9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of refund of duty. As facts of the case are crystal clear that it is a case of refund of penalty and for refund of penalty there is no such provisions in law where the appellant is required to establish that they have to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. Thus, following the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (I) , MUMBAI VERSUS BE OFFICE AUTOMATION PVT LTD. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been rejected by the authorities below on the grounds of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts of the case are that initially the proceedings were initiated against the appellant for payment of service tax under the category of Banking and Financial Institution Services and a show cause notice were issued to the appellant. On adjudication of the same, the demand of service tax was confirmed along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropping the penalty against the appellant. After dropping of penalty by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant filed refund claim of refund of penalty deposited by them for filing the appeal before higher forum. The refund claim of penalty deposited by the appellant was rejected initially on the ground that they have paid the penalty under wrong head and they have failed to pass the bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010-TIOL-570-CESTATMUM (iii) Ratan Udyog vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Acc Export), Mumbai-2014 (313) ELT 764 (Tri-Mum) Following the order of the Hon ble High Court of Mumbai in United Spirits Ld. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-2009(240) ELT 513 (Bom). Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order qua rejecting the refund claim on the account of unjust enrichment is to be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Be Office Automation Pvt Ltd., Anand Silk Mills vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva, Ratan Udyog vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Acc Export), Mumbai, I hold that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order qua rejecting the refund claim on the ground that appellant has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
