2019 (6) TMI 1323 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal granted due to jurisdictional issues and filing discrepancies, overturning rejection of refund claim.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order that rejected the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. The decision was made ... Refund of service tax - unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- Since the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order is unsustainable in law despite his endorsement in order that appeal was filed on 30-1-2017, the same is admittedly a misstatement made by another quasi-judicial appellate authority as in the appeal memo endorsement of the Commissioner bears 17-1-2017 as date of filing and it was sent to the appellant on 12-1-2018 i.e., almost after one year. Furthermore show cause notice to the Appellant issued on 7-2-2017 making duty demand holding adjudication order of refund as erroneous which is silent about such filing of appeal in an hypothecated date mentioned by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be taken as the date of filing of appeal before him. Commissioner (Appeal)’s order, which is assailed in this appeal, is passed without authority of law - Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 7,00,000 based on the concept of unjust enrichment. The appellant had initially been refunded the said amount, which was erroneously paid as Service Tax for the construction of a Cold Storage facility exempted from Service Tax. Subsequently, a notice was issued for the recovery of the refunded amount, leading to an appeal process. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim citing unjust enrichment, as the amount was not refunded to the service receiver at a certain point, despite the appellant's claim that it had duly transferred the amount to the receiver. The appellant contended that the appeal filed after the initial adjudication order was not valid due to jurisdictional issues and lack of proper filing documentation. The Commissioner's order was challenged as being unsustainable in law due to discrepancies in the filing date of the appeal and the issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's order was passed without authority of law and set it aside, allowing the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order that rejected the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. The decision was made due to jurisdictional issues and discrepancies in the filing process, leading to the conclusion that the Commissioner's order lacked legal authority.