M/s CHOWGULE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I, PUNE & ORS
CESTAT, Mumbai
S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) & C.G. Mathew, Member (Technical)
M/s CHOWGULE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I, PUNE & ORS
SERVICE TAX EARLY HEARING APPLICATION No. 85991 of 2022 IN SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 86980 of 2016 WITH SERVICE TAX EARLY HEARING APPLICATION No. 12.01.202385992 of 2022 IN SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 88327 of 2019 dated
Law : Service Tax
Decision : In favour of revenue
Unjust enrichment – Refund of Pre-Deposit – It was submitted that doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B is not applicable to the pre-deposit made under Section 35F – Further regarding that a letter date 21.08.2009 was also filed with Additional Commissioner of Service Tax Cell, Pune – III informing that the said amount has been deposited under protest in compliance of statutory requirement of Section 35F to acquire the right of appeal – Held that: The Hon’ble CESTAT Mumbai after going through the submissions from the both sides and the facts of the case, took note of the law stated in Section 35F of the Central Excise – Observed that, perusal of the said section would clearly indicate that for the purpose of filing an appeal, the assessee has to deposit confirmed demand, interest and penalty with the department – The Hon’ble Bench considering the argument advanced on the behalf of the respondent that ‘the amount shown in the books as expenditure, is indirectly passed on to the other person’ found that this argument is without any basis as there is no such accounting procedure. Moreover, the conditions mentioned by the Additional Commissioner in the order-in-original dated 15.12.2017, is without any authoritative support and appears to have been designed in conformity to his erroneous understanding – The Hon’ble CESTAT with the above findings set- aside the impugned order and held that the Appellant is entitled to get the refund of the entire amount of Rs. 21,26,143/- along with applicable interest with the directions to the Department to pay the same within three months of the order.
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mukesh Deshmane
Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
🔒 Premium Content
Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.
Become Premium Member