https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235874 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the appellant's refund claim, citing unjust enrichment and time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the appellant's arguments and case law references, the Tribunal found prima facie applicability of unjust enrichment as the service tax had only been paid once and recovered from customers. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of meeting the requirements of Section 11B, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 within eight weeks for a stay from recovery, highlighting the need to establish no passing on of duty burden for refund eligibility. en-us Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235874 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the appellant's refund claim, citing unjust enrichment and time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the appellant's arguments and case law references, the Tribunal found prima facie applicability of unjust enrichment as the service tax had only been paid once and recovered from customers. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of meeting the requirements of Section 11B, directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 within eight weeks for a stay from recovery, highlighting the need to establish no passing on of duty burden for refund eligibility. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235874