2022 (11) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Dhadda, Chartered Accountant for the appellant. Shri Ishwar Charan, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is rejection of refund of penalty deposited, after passing of the order-in-original, and whether the same is just and proper. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant have a hotel and is registered under the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant then deposited penalty of Rs.5,000/- vide challan dated 25.04.2012 and Rs.1,93,773/- vide challan dated 22.04.2013 under Section 77 & 78 respectively. 4. Being aggrieved with the order-in-original no.61(ST)JP-I/2013-ADC dated 26.03.2013, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & CGST, Jaipu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itation as well as for unjust enrichment. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to reject the appeal upholding the order of rejection of refund. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. Counsel states that for the purpose of refund of penalty, no limitation is applicable under Section 11 B(1) read with Expl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tions, I hold that, for refund of penalty, which has admittedly been deposited after passing of the order-in-original  dated 26.03.2013, no limitation applies. Further, in the facts and circumstances, the provisions of unjust enrichment are not attracted as the burden of penalty is borne by the appellant and has not been passed on to their service receivers. Moreover, I find that the refund a....