9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent No. 2 (Applicant) ORDER ORDER : [ PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL ] The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 1.1. Director General Married Accommodation Project (DG MAP) has also filed an application for impleading as a respondent to the appeal filed by the Revenue, on the ground that the refund claim, which is the subject matter of this case, is accrued to them and not hearing them would be a prejudice to them and to the proper adjudication of the case. 1.2. We have heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant, namely, DG MAP, who is found to be a necessary party for fair adjudication of the case. Therefore, we allow the miscellaneous application filed by the applicant. DG MAP shall hereinafter be known as the "Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refund claim in the name of the respective department of the Military Engineer Services ('MES'), DG MAP. 3.2. The Respondent No. 1 stated that pursuant to a personal hearing, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Bhowanipur C.G.S.T. & C.X., Kolkata North Commissionerate passed the Order-in-Original dated 28.02.2018 wherein he had sanctioned the refund claim, but transferred the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable in the case. 3.3. The said order was challenged before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), C.G.S.T. & C.X., Kolkata, who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 116/Kol-South/2021 dated 10.09.2021 set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority. 5. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before us on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to claim refund of the Service Tax paid by them as they have collected the said Service Tax from DG MAP, who is the Respondent No. 2 herein, and the Respondent No. 2 is not entitled to the claim of refund since they have filed the refund claim with a delay, in violation of the conditions stipulated under Section 102(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of both the respondents reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 8. On consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and upon hearing all the coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
