TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in other category during the relevant period and, therefore, requested for refund of the service tax paid for the period 25.04.2006 to 20.01.2007 by a claim which was received by the department on 05.03.2008. Show-cause notice dated 14.03.2008 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim and after adjudication the original authority observed that the activities rendered by the appellants are taxable services under section 65(105)(zzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994, namely, "Survey and Exploration of Minerals Services." It was also observed that the refund claim pertaining to the period prior to 20.03.2007 was hit by limitation as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed on to another. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim on this ground observing that the appellants have not taken such a plea before him. However, while considering a refund application, the authority is incumbent to adjudicate the issue of unjust enrichment also. In such circumstances, we may deem it fit to remand the matter to the original authority to consider the issue of unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority shall give the appellants a chance of personal hearing as well as sufficient time to produce documents. 6. Another contention of the appellants is that the refund claim is not hit by limitation, since the appellants had paid the service tax by mistake. That as per mandate of Constitution no tax ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. The decision of the High Court was on an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the decision of the Tribunal on the applicability of limitation when the tax was purportedly paid by mistake understanding of law. 8. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Nataraj and Venkat Associates - 2015 (40) STR 31 (Mad.) held as below: "8. From the Materials available on record, it is seen that the amounts were credit to the Revenue under the Head of Account "0044-Service tax" through TR-6 challans, which are purported for payment of Service Tax only and as such, the claim of the respondent that the payment was only deposit and not Service Tax, cannot be sustained. Further, a tax be it, direct or indirect, is intended for immediate expenditure for....