2017 (8) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2003. Another refund of Rs. 5,31,607/is made for the period between June 2003 and February 2004. Both these claims are rejected. Claim of Rs. 14,97,334/is rejected on the count of limitation, whereas the another claim is rejected on the count of unjust enrichment. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the rejection of the claim on the ground of limitation is totally unjustifiable. The appellant had paid the service tax under mistaken belief that the service tax is payable. Subsequently, in view of the Service Tax Circular dated 23rd March 2004, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, it became clear that the appellant is not liable to pay the service tax and immediately in July 2004 filed ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 14 lakh and odd on the ground of limitation is concerned, the same appears to be only on the ground that claim of refund was made after lapse of one year after payment of the service tax. No other aspect appears to have been considered by the Authority and the Tribunal. The appellant is relying upon the Circular dated 23rd March 2004 to suggest that pursuant to the said Circular, he got the knowledge that the appellant is no liable to pay service tax and still that service tax was being paid by the appellant. We have perused the Judgment delivered in the case of Hindustan Cocoa Products v. Union of India, delivered by the Division Bench of this Court and reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 525 (Bom.), so also the another Judgment of the Divisio....