Tribunal overturns decision denying refund to Rent-a-Cab operator, citing lack of opportunity and unjust enrichment concerns.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision disallowing a refund to the Rent-a-Cab operator under Section 84 of the Finance Act. The Commissioner's failure to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and consider evidence on unjust enrichment violated principles of natural justice. The appellant's submission of a certificate from the service recipient showing no service tax claimed during a specific period supported the finding that there was no unjust enrichment. The delay in issuing the show cause notice and lack of proper examination led to the Tribunal allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if applicable.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves the disallowance of a refund by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, based on the aspect of unjust enrichment, without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

Summary:
The appellant, a Rent-a-Cab operator, was issued a show cause notice for recovery of service tax. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, and the appellant deposited an amount with the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appeal and the appellant filed a refund claim, which was finalized and sanctioned. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, questioning the refund on grounds of unjust enrichment.

The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the show cause notice was issued after a significant delay and no opportunity of hearing was granted. The Commissioner had not considered evidence regarding unjust enrichment and passed the order without proper examination.

The appellant presented a certificate from the service recipient stating that no service tax was claimed during a specific period, indicating no unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's actions were not justified, as the delay in revision and lack of proper opportunity of hearing were not in accordance with the law. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any as per law.

---