https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774276 CESTAT Mumbai-AT allowed the appeal and set aside the refund rejection order. The original authority had summarily rejected the refund claim under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 (applied to Finance Act, 1994) without proper examination of whether tax was collected in excess or determining the appellant's eligibility as a 'person' under the provision. The first appellate authority improperly ventured into service nature determination without issuing notice to the appellant. The tribunal found both authorities failed to consider legal and factual aspects properly, directing fresh disposal by the original authority after due consideration of all circumstances. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2025 14:37:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774276 CESTAT Mumbai-AT allowed the appeal and set aside the refund rejection order. The original authority had summarily rejected the refund claim under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 (applied to Finance Act, 1994) without proper examination of whether tax was collected in excess or determining the appellant's eligibility as a 'person' under the provision. The first appellate authority improperly ventured into service nature determination without issuing notice to the appellant. The tribunal found both authorities failed to consider legal and factual aspects properly, directing fresh disposal by the original authority after due consideration of all circumstances. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774276