https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423935 The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) and directed the appellant to receive the deposited amount with interest from the Respondent-Department within three months. The Tribunal rejected the argument that showing the amount as expenditure in accounting records automatically leads to unjust enrichment, emphasizing that the burden of proof for unjust enrichment was not established. The appellant successfully challenged the denial of the refund claim against a pre-deposit made under Section 35F, asserting that the doctrine of unjust enrichment should not bar such refunds. en-us Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jun 2022 09:02:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423935 The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-II) and directed the appellant to receive the deposited amount with interest from the Respondent-Department within three months. The Tribunal rejected the argument that showing the amount as expenditure in accounting records automatically leads to unjust enrichment, emphasizing that the burden of proof for unjust enrichment was not established. The appellant successfully challenged the denial of the refund claim against a pre-deposit made under Section 35F, asserting that the doctrine of unjust enrichment should not bar such refunds. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423935