Appellant wins refund appeal against Revenue's claim for deposit amount.

The appellant, a subsidiary, was directed to make a pre-deposit, which was later found eligible for a refund. The Revenue appealed, claiming the deposit amount. The Commissioner rejected the refund, alleging the holding company made the payment. However, the judge disagreed, finding evidence supporting the appellant's claim and noting the merger of the entities. The judge allowed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence from the Revenue to counter the appellant's documented proof, and granted consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund claim eligibility and waiver of pre-deposit.
2. Justification of refund claim and unjust enrichment.
3. Interpretation of evidence regarding payment by the holding company.
4. Rebuttable evidence and denial of refund based on assumptions.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a subsidiary of a company, made a pre-deposit as directed by the Tribunal. The matter was decided in favor of the appellant, making them eligible for a refund of the deposit. However, the Revenue filed an appeal seeking the deposit amount. The Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal, leading the appellant to request a stay against recovery and waiver of pre-deposit.

2. The Commissioner (A) rejected the refund claim, stating that the amount was paid by the holding company and not by the appellant. The Commissioner highlighted various pieces of evidence, including Chartered Accountant certificates and ledger extracts, to support the claim that the holding company had made the payment. The Commissioner concluded that refunding the amount to the appellant would result in unjust enrichment.

3. The presiding judge disagreed with the Commissioner's decision. Upon reviewing the balance sheets and records of both the appellant and the holding company, it was evident that the amount in question had been consistently shown as receivable and lying with the Government. The judge emphasized that the appellant had provided documentary evidence to support their claim, which the Revenue failed to rebut. The judge also noted that the appellant and the holding company had merged, making the distinction between the entities irrelevant for the refund claim.

4. The judge ultimately allowed the appeal, recognizing the validity of the appellant's claim for a refund. The decision was based on the lack of evidence from the Revenue to counter the appellant's documented proof regarding the treatment of the amount in question. The judge emphasized that refund denial cannot be based on assumptions of passing on costs without concrete evidence. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---