https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443630 The Department of Central Excise and Service Tax appealed against the CESTAT's order granting a refund of service tax to the respondent, deposited by mistake. The Appellate Authority upheld the initial rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, CESTAT ruled in favor of the respondent, stating the limitation period should start from the discovery of the mistake. The court emphasized the need for evidence to establish non-passing of the tax incidence to consumers, in line with the principle of unjust enrichment. The appeal was dismissed, requiring the respondent to provide such evidence to the Assessing Authority. en-us Wed, 20 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Oct 2023 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443630 The Department of Central Excise and Service Tax appealed against the CESTAT's order granting a refund of service tax to the respondent, deposited by mistake. The Appellate Authority upheld the initial rejection based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, CESTAT ruled in favor of the respondent, stating the limitation period should start from the discovery of the mistake. The court emphasized the need for evidence to establish non-passing of the tax incidence to consumers, in line with the principle of unjust enrichment. The appeal was dismissed, requiring the respondent to provide such evidence to the Assessing Authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443630