9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for the Appellant Shri R. Rajaraman, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that during the audit of accounts, it was noticed that the assessee is liable to pay service tax under the category of renting of immovable property service, ocean freight charges and scientific and technical services. The appellant paid the tax along with applicable cess. As they were eligible to avail cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itigation, the Commissioner (Appeals) had already held that the cess paid along with the tax is not eligible for refund. In the second round of litigation, thus, the refund claim was limited to Rs.3,66,307/-. Against this order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim on the ground of limitation under sec. 11B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w CGST Act, 2017, the appellant filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal Order No. 50165/2022 dated 11.2.2022 and the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Commissioner vide Final Order No. 20505/2021 dated 7.7.2021. It is argued by the learned consultant that section 142(8)(b) has an overriding effect and the refund can be rejected only on the ground of unjust enrichment. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. The learned AR Shri R. Rajaraman supported the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of subsection 2 of Section 11B (unjust enrichment) of Central Excise Act. 5. Further, again 142(8)(b) also similarly provides for disbursement of any refund arising pursuant to assessment or adjudication proceedings, except for the provisions of Section 11B(2) of Central Excise Act, which deals with unjust enrichment. 6. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, no limitation i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
