https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398225 The judgment ruled in favor of the appellant's refund claim, setting aside the denial based on Section 11B limitations. The amalgamation leading to service impossibility post-merger allowed for the refund under Rule 6 (3) of the Service Tax Rules, treating the excess payment as a deposit distinct from regular tax. The decision highlighted the absence of concerns regarding unjust enrichment and granted consequential benefits to the appellant in line with legal precedents, ultimately allowing the appeal. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398225 The judgment ruled in favor of the appellant's refund claim, setting aside the denial based on Section 11B limitations. The amalgamation leading to service impossibility post-merger allowed for the refund under Rule 6 (3) of the Service Tax Rules, treating the excess payment as a deposit distinct from regular tax. The decision highlighted the absence of concerns regarding unjust enrichment and granted consequential benefits to the appellant in line with legal precedents, ultimately allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 08 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398225