9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formality. So also, when a bona fide taxpayer remits tax, it is incumbent upon the Revenue to retain the tax as per law and if such remittance is found to be excessive, then that excess being collected without the authority of law, shall have to be refunded. Strangely, the Adjudicating Authority having referred to the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, has not at all discussed anything about it and has proceeded to hold that the appellant had passed on the duty element to the ultimate service recipients and hence, there was unjust enrichment, which, according to me, is not in accordance with the requirement of law - The fact that the appellant claimed refund itself shows that the remittance which was subsequently claimed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44 and that the appellant had not furnished any evidence to substantiate that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the recipients of service (paragraph 6 of the Show Cause Notice). The appellant filed a detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice substantiating its claim for refund, but however, vide Order-in-Original No. 01/2021 (RF-Legacy) dated 29.03.2021, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim. Aggrieved by the rejection, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Chennai, who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 07/2022 (CTA-II) dated 24.01.2022 also having rejected the appeal, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 4. Heard Shri J. Shankar Raman, Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, has not at all discussed anything about it and has proceeded to hold that the appellant had passed on the duty element to the ultimate service recipients and hence, there was unjust enrichment, which, according to me, is not in accordance with the requirement of law. The Adjudicating Authority has extracted a table to assume that the appellant had collected Service Tax from the service recipients, which is exactly contrary to the stand of the appellant, which is duly supported by evidence in the form of a certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant. When such an evidence is placed on record, it is incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to examine and discuss as to why he is not accepting the same; but without any such exercise, the Adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that is barred by limitation, provided for under Section. (b) The claim for return of money must be considered by the authorities. 10. The fact that the appellant claimed refund itself shows that the remittance which was subsequently claimed as refund was not paid in accordance with law and hence, the same would partake the character of an amount being paid under protest or the same being paid by mistake, which aspect has been considered in the above ruling of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. Hence, I am of the view that the rejection orders of the lower authorities are not in accordance with law, which cannot therefore be sustained. For the above reason, the impugned order is set aside. 11. The appeal is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
