9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication stage nor at the stage of settlement under the SVLDR scheme - Thus, under the facts and circumstances, the said amount is lying with the Department by way of revenue deposit. For such amount of Revenue deposit, there is no question of any limitation as provided under Section 11B of the Act and the appellant is entitled to refund of the said amount. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant refund of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest under Section 11BB as per rule - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50506 of 2021-SM - FINAL ORDER No. 50372/2022 - Dated:- 21-4-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sh. Pradeep Jain, C. A. for the appellant Sh. Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited prior to adjudication was not appropriated and/or given credit. Thereafter, in view of the SVLDR Scheme, the appellant filed Form SVLDRS-1 for settlement of their tax dues of Rs.10,61,694/- relating to the period 2015-16 upto 30.06.2017. In Form SVLDRS-1, the appellant mentioned that there is a pre-deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly the balance amount payable under the scheme is Rs.3,45,677/-. Learned Counsel points out that, as this amount of Rs.2,00,000/- deposited on 02.08.2019, was deposited under the new Service tax Registration No.AEMPS2728BSD001, as the appellant was made to understand by the Department that they could not deposit the tax amount under their existing Service Tax Registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application dt.06.06.2020. In response thereto, the Revenue issued show cause notice to the Prop. Sh. Atul Srivastav as to why the refund claim should not be rejected under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 142(3) of the CGST Act. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest and the refund amount was rejected observing that the appellant have not supplied documentary evidence by which it can be established that they have not utilised the said amount for discharging any other tax liability, and the said amount was lying in excess. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to reject the appeal agreeing with the Assistant Commissioner. 7. Being aggrieved, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
