https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379872 The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and disposed of the application. The appellant, a subcontractor, mistakenly deposited certain amounts as service tax, leading to a substantial refund being granted but later refused based on the principle of unjust enrichment under Section 11B. The court aligned with CESTAT's view on the necessity of a separate show cause notice under Section 11B for fairness to the assessee. It emphasized the need for specific notification when applying Section 11B, especially in refund cases. The appeal was dismissed due to the inconsistent approach of the service tax department in granting refunds. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2019 15:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379872 The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and disposed of the application. The appellant, a subcontractor, mistakenly deposited certain amounts as service tax, leading to a substantial refund being granted but later refused based on the principle of unjust enrichment under Section 11B. The court aligned with CESTAT's view on the necessity of a separate show cause notice under Section 11B for fairness to the assessee. It emphasized the need for specific notification when applying Section 11B, especially in refund cases. The appeal was dismissed due to the inconsistent approach of the service tax department in granting refunds. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 12 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379872