https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418757 The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per the law. The Member overturned the rejection of the refund claim based on limitation and unjust enrichment issues. The claim was found to be within the prescribed period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the coverage of Service Tax for the earlier period was deemed sufficient. The appellant successfully demonstrated that the tax burden was not passed on to its customers, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. en-us Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:12:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418757 The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per the law. The Member overturned the rejection of the refund claim based on limitation and unjust enrichment issues. The claim was found to be within the prescribed period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the coverage of Service Tax for the earlier period was deemed sufficient. The appellant successfully demonstrated that the tax burden was not passed on to its customers, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418757