9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich have been passed in similar circumstances, where due to cancellation of some of the invoices, the amount of service tax relating to the cancelled invoices stood in excess, which was credited in TRANS-I under GST law and was reversed along with payment of interest, in view of an objection taken by the GST Department. The Authorities below have seriously erred in not even considering the law laid down by the Tribunal, which was specifically pointed by the appellant and is binding on them - the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. The Adjudicating Authority had rejected the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment as well as on the ground that the appellant had not paid any excess amount of service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,17,874/- on 23.01.2021. 3. On scrutiny of the refund claim, show cause notice dated 9.8.2021 was issued as to why refund claim should not be rejected on the ground that the appellant had not paid excess payment of service tax also on the ground of unjust enrichment and on the ground of refund claim being time barred under Section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand both on the ground of unjust enrichment and that the assessee has not paid any excess payment of service tax. The refund claim was rejected as being time barred in view of the provisions of Section 11 B of the Act as the credit was taken in the GST TRAN-I on 27.12.2017 but the refund claim was made on 22.07.2021 i.e. after four ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eversed the said amount and also paid an interest of Rs. 52,256/- on 27.02.2019. In these peculiar circumstances, I find that since the appellant has transferred the amount of excess paid service tax in the TRANS-1 and same was reversed on 27.02.2019, therefore till the date up to 27.02.2019 there is no cause for claiming refund of this amount. The refund is arising only after the appellant reversed the amount on 27.02.2019. The refund was admittedly filed on 05.04.2019 i.e well within the prescribed time limit of 1 year in terms of section 11B. Therefore, in my considered view, the refund was filed well within the time. Hence, the same is not time barred. As submitted by the Learned Authorized Representative the issue of unjust enrichment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment as well as on the ground that the appellant had not paid any excess amount of service tax for the reasons that the appellant had not produced any documentary evidence, in support thereof. As I am remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on the aforesaid issues, I grant liberty to the appellant to submit all documents and details in support of his submissions to prove that there was excess payment of service tax due to cancellation of invoices, which according to him were five in numbers and also that he has not passed on the incidence of duty to the customers. The impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
