2013 (12) TMI 798

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssion inclusive of service tax and the service tax amount was not mentioned separately in their ledgers. The service tax was calculated on the total commission received treating the same as cum-tax receipt. By mistake, while paying service tax, the concerned person went on paying service tax on the cumulative amount instead of paying service tax on the commission received during the month. This was noticed by the internal audit team of the Bank and a refund claim was made for Rs.1,41,528/-. The refund was sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner, in exercise of the power vested in him under Section 84 of the Finance Act 1994, issued a show-cause notice proposing revision of the order on the ground that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f that appeal is not known and according to the Chartered Accountant, it is still pending. 3. The above observation would show that we have two orders, one passed by Commissioner taking a view that appellant has not passed the hurdle of unjust enrichment and required the appellant to pay back the refund already received by them and another order passed by the Deputy Commissioner subsequently which takes the view that the refund sanctioned originally was correct and there is no need for the appellant to repay. Thereby the appellant has two orders now. This unfortunate situation has arisen because the Deputy Commissioner passed the order on a show-cause notice when the Commissioner had already confirmed the demand for refund already sancti....