Appellant wins refund claim post-withdrawal of proceedings, court allows appeal

The appellant's refund claim was initially rejected, citing limitation and unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped proceedings against the appellant, which the Revenue challenged but later withdrew. The appellant paid the disputed amount during the appeal and filed a refund claim, contending it was valid due to payment during the appeal. The Revenue argued the payment was post-court decision and not refundable. The court found the appellant not liable when the proceedings were dropped, leading to refund entitlement as no demand was sustainable. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order.

---

---

Issues involved:
The appellant's refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority, citing reasons of limitation and unjust enrichment.

Summary:
The appellant was issued a show-cause notice demanding Service Tax, which was confirmed by an order. However, the proceedings against the appellant were dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue challenged this decision but later withdrew the appeal under National Litigation Policy. The appellant paid the disputed amount during the appeal and filed a refund claim, which was rejected for being beyond the limitation period and failing the unjust enrichment test. The appellant contended that the payment was made during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, the refund claim was valid. The Revenue argued that the appellant paid without protest after a decision by the Apex Court and hence, was not entitled to a refund.

After considering the submissions, it was found that at the time the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the proceedings, the Apex Court's decision was not available. Therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay the service tax. Since the Revenue's appeal was withdrawn, no demand was sustainable against the appellant, and the payment made was considered a deposit. Thus, no limitation applied, and unjust enrichment was not applicable. The appellant's entitlement to a refund was upheld, and a previous case was deemed not applicable to the present circumstances. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---