Appeal allowed, Commissioner's grounds invalid, refund claim restored, order set aside

The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, with the Member finding the grounds adopted by the Commissioner invalid. The original authority's sanction of the refund claim was restored as the deposited amount was deemed refundable since the proceedings were dropped. The refund claim was filed within the stipulated time, and the appellant had not included the Service tax amount in their invoices, supporting the argument against unjust enrichment. The Commissioner's order was set aside, and the refund sanction was reinstated.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against revision order setting aside refund sanction. Validity of refund claim time limit and unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against a revision order by the Commissioner that set aside the refund sanction of Rs. 3,00,497 by the original authority. The appellant had deposited this amount towards Service tax liability under Business Auxiliary Service, which was later dropped by the original authority.
2. The appellant argued that the refund claim was made within the stipulated time limit and was not barred by unjust enrichment. They contended that the amount deposited was only a deposit made under protest, as acknowledged by the Department in the show cause notice.
3. The Department, represented by the SDR, claimed that the appellant failed to prove that the amount was paid under protest and that they did not pass on the burden to their service recipient.
4. The Member (T) carefully considered both sides' submissions and noted that the amount was paid after the service charges were collected, and the original authority had ruled the appellant was not liable to pay Service tax. The Department itself treated the amount as a deposit in the show cause notice.
5. The Member held that since the proceedings were dropped, the deposited amount was refundable. The refund claim was filed within the stipulated time, and the appellant had not included the Service tax amount in their invoices at the time of service provision, supporting the argument against unjust enrichment.
6. Consequently, the Member found the grounds adopted by the Commissioner invalid and set aside the Commissioner's order, restoring the original authority's sanction of the refund claim.
7. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the order of the Commissioner was deemed unsustainable, reinstating the refund sanction by the original authority.

---