9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... National Litigation Policy on 27.02.2016, thereafter, no demand is sustainable against the appellant and the amount paid by the appellant on 26.02.2011 is only a deposit. In view of this, no limitation is applicable. Further, no bar of unjust enrichment is applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, as the appellant has also made the payment for the period from 10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005 on 26.02.2011. The appellant is entitled for refund claim and the decision in the case of M/S. TIGER LOGISTICS (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-II, DELHI [ 2022 (2) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case where it was held that In this case, once the service tax, admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, the appellant paid the disputed amount of service tax. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim on 28.02.2016 as there was no demand sustainable against the appellant. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for rejection of their refund claim dated 26.12.2016 as the refund claim is filed beyond the period of limitation and fails to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the refund claim was rejected and on appeal, the adjudication order was confirmed and the refund claim was rejected. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant, submits that they have made the said payment for which they have sought refund on 20.06.2011 when the appeal filed by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by the appellant on 26.02.2011 is only a deposit. In view of this, no limitation is applicable. Further, no bar of unjust enrichment is applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, as the appellant has also made the payment for the period from 10.09.2004 to 15.06.2005 on 26.02.2011. 7. In that circumstances, I hold that the appellant is entitled for refund claim and the decision in the case of Tiger Logistics (India) Ltd. : 2022 (63) GSTL 337 (Tri.-Del.) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. Cross objection also gets d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
