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 due to jurisdictional issues and discrepancies in the filing process, leading to the conclusion that the Commissioner's order lacked legal authority.

---

---

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.

---