https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758534 CESTAT Chandigarh dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding refund claim with interest under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant proved no service tax was charged to SEZ units through invoices, establishing they bore the refund amount burden. Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that Rule 6(3) CCR Rules refers to "amount" not "duty/tax," making unjust enrichment doctrine inapplicable. Denial of wrongly paid amount refund violates Article 265 of Constitution. Erroneous payment under mistake of law doesn't attract unjust enrichment provisions under Section 11B Central Excise Act. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Sep 2024 12:47:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758534 CESTAT Chandigarh dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding refund claim with interest under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant proved no service tax was charged to SEZ units through invoices, establishing they bore the refund amount burden. Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that Rule 6(3) CCR Rules refers to "amount" not "duty/tax," making unjust enrichment doctrine inapplicable. Denial of wrongly paid amount refund violates Article 265 of Constitution. Erroneous payment under mistake of law doesn't attract unjust enrichment provisions under Section 11B Central Excise Act. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 13 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758534