Revisionary refund disallowance fails where delay, inadequate hearing, and evidence against unjust enrichment are not properly addressed.

Revisionary action under Section 84 of the Finance Act was found unsustainable where it was initiated after more than one year and ten months from the refund sanction without justification. The hearing process was also defective because four dates were fixed together, only one effective opportunity was given, and the request for further time to reply was not considered before the order was passed ex parte. On unjust enrichment, a certificate from the service recipient stating that no service tax had been recovered supported the claimant's case and negatived that basis for disallowing refund. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisionary order disallowing refund was sustainable when the revision was initiated after a substantial delay, only one effective opportunity of hearing was afforded, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was invoked without proper consideration of the evidence.

Analysis: The revision under Section 84 of the Finance Act was exercised after more than one year and ten months from the date of sanction of refund, which was found unjustified in the facts of the case. The notice fixed four dates in one go, which amounted to only one opportunity of hearing. The request for additional time to reply was not dealt with, and the order was passed ex parte without meaningful hearing. The record also contained a certificate from the service recipient stating that no service tax had been recovered from it during the relevant period, and this evidence negatived the basis for applying unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be unsustainable and was set aside; the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---