2007 (10) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in their 2005 budget, which fact became known to the appellants towards the end of February, 2005 (the proposal became law with effect from 16-6-2005). The appellants accordingly applied for cancellation of their registration as Real Estate Agent in March, 2005. Simultaneously, they also applied for refund of the service tax which they had paid for the period April, 2000 to January, 2005. This claim was made under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The original authority rejected the claim for refund for the prescribed period of limitation (March, 2004 - January, 2005) on merits. As for the claim for refund for the period prior to March, 2004, that authority rejected it as time-barred. Aggr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng decisions (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III v. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (206) E.L.T. 90 (Kar.)]. (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Indian Ispat Works (P) Ltd. [2006 (3) S.T.R. 161 (Tri.-Del.)]. 3. Apart from reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), learned SDR has also referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills [1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.)], wherein the time limit under the Central Excise Act was held to be applicable to recovery by the department of any amount erroneously refunded to assessee. 4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I note that the appellants have already enjoyed the frui....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant's Chartered Accountant, who certified that the amount had not been collected by the party from their customers. Learned Counsel has submitted that his clients have since obtained the amount also. It would thus appear that the appellants are estopped from contending that the refund since obtained by them is not a refund of tax but one of an amount of money simplicitor. Their Chartered Accountant showed it to be an amount of service tax paid during 2004-05 and also certified that the claim for its refund was not barred by unjust enrichment. Acting upon that certificate, the Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund and the appellants received the money. Thus the appellants have since obtained a part of the refund in terms of Section....