9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether there is any material on record to establish that Revenue had raised any objection to the said claim made by the appellant through the said ST-3 return. There are no counter from Revenue either through filing cross objections or through filing synopsis by the Authorised Representative or any submissions of the Authorised Representative stating that the said ST-3 return was not accepted by Revenue. The said amount of Rs.5,34,693/- was paid as advance under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules and therefore by applying the precedent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Accounts Hub Pvt. Ltd. [ 2023 (3) TMI 1369 - CESTAT MUMBAI] it is held that the appellant was eligible for the said refund. Since the amount sought f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order-in-appeal, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that in terms of serial No.9 of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, all services provided to educational institutions were exempted. On 05.10.2012, appellant paid Rs.5,94,919/- towards service tax through challan and subsequently filed the said refund claim. He further stated that the said amount of refund mentioned was having a mistake and the correct amount of refund that should have been claimed by them was Rs.5,34,693/-. He has submitted that on 30.04.2013, they had filed statutory ST-3 return for the period from July 2012 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t service tax was not paid as advance payment and also stated that debit/credit notes were issued subsequent to the filing of application for refund. He has further submitted that doctrine of unjust enrichment is attracted in the present case. 4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made. The original authority has denied the appellant the exemption claimed, by the order through which application for refund was decided. The learned AR has claimed that the amount deposited by the appellant was not advance. We, therefore, decided to examine the issue through the documentary evidence of ST-3 return. ST-3 return was filed by the appellant on 30.04.2013. At column A 11.2, appellant claimed the said exemption t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
