2015 (11) TMI 1255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORDER Per: G. Raghuram: The assessee is the appellant and has filed the appeal against the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Kanpur whereby the lower appellate Authority rejected assessee's appeal for refund of excess service tax deposited, amounting to Rs. 2,86,443/-. 2. Relevant facts may be noticed. During 18.04.2006....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 2,86,443/- after adjustment of the assessees tax liability under Section 75 of the Act. 5. The Assistant Commissioner, Kanpur by an order dated 27.12.2012 rejected the refund claim on the bar of limitation as well as on the ground that the assessee was unable to establish that there was no unjust enrichment involved and assessee had not passed on the burden of service tax. Assessee prefe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax liability of Rs. 15,69,823/- apart from the interest thereon. In the circumstances, the excess amount deposited by the appellant, if refundable under law would be the amount receivable by it, particularly as the appellate authority found in favour of the assessee on the point of limitation. 6. It however requires to be noticed that the impugned order in para 7 computes the quantum of refund ....