https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753168 The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and allowing the refund claims. It determined that the minor procedural lapse of branches filing instead of the head office did not justify denial. The centralized registration and compliance with section 102 conditions supported the claims. The Tribunal found no unjust enrichment, as service tax liability was borne by the appellants, evidenced by balance sheets and certified work orders. The inclusion of all taxes in contracts with the U.P. Government further negated unjust enrichment claims. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, affirming the appellants' entitlement to refunds. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2024 10:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753168 The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and allowing the refund claims. It determined that the minor procedural lapse of branches filing instead of the head office did not justify denial. The centralized registration and compliance with section 102 conditions supported the claims. The Tribunal found no unjust enrichment, as service tax liability was borne by the appellants, evidenced by balance sheets and certified work orders. The inclusion of all taxes in contracts with the U.P. Government further negated unjust enrichment claims. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, affirming the appellants' entitlement to refunds. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 08 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753168