https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266659 The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the appellant, as the recipient of services, did not recover the service tax from customers. The refund claim, initially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, was reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing time-bar and unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the appellant succeeded on the issue of unjust enrichment and remanded the matter for quantifying and sanctioning the refund claim within the normal period. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266659 The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the appellant, as the recipient of services, did not recover the service tax from customers. The refund claim, initially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, was reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing time-bar and unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the appellant succeeded on the issue of unjust enrichment and remanded the matter for quantifying and sanctioning the refund claim within the normal period. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266659