Page 129 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

2020 ] AVS AUTO FINANCE v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CGST, JAIPUR 63
whether the same is applicable or not. Having discussed above, we set aside the
impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for pass-
ing a fresh order after providing sufficient opportunities to the appellant. Since
the matter is of very old period, i.e. 2008-2009 to 2017, the Adjudicating Authori-
ty shall pass the de novo order within a period of 3 months from the date of this
order.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 20-3-2020)

_______

2020 (40) G.S.T.L. 63 (Tri. - Del.)

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. II]
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
AVS AUTO FINANCE
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CGST, JAIPUR

Final Order Nos. A/50526-50527/2020-SM(BR), dated 4-3-2020
in Appeal Nos. ST/51404 & 51417/2019-SM
Refund - Limitation - Relevant date - To be date of Tribunal’s order in
assessee’s favour - Claims filed within one year of Tribunal’s order - Claim not
time-barred - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service
Tax vide Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 5]
Refund - Unjust enrichment - Tax paid under protest pending chal-
lenge against demand - At time of issuance of invoice Service Tax not charged
from service recipient for reimbursement of any amount towards Service Tax -
Bar of unjust enrichment not applicable - Refund claim to be allowed - Section
11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of
Finance Act, 1994. [para 6]
Appeal allowed
CASE CITED
Argus Marketing v. Commissioner — Final Order Nos. 53419-53420/2018,
dated 19-12-2018, by CESTAT, New Delhi — Referred .............................................................. [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Alok Kothari, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Tamanna Alam and Shri Y. Singh, Authorised
Representatives, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order
wherein the refund claim has been rejected as time-barred and the appellants
have failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in provid-
ing services to the banks for finalising loans to various parties. Revenue is of the
view that the activity undertaken by the appellants falls under the category of
Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), therefore, show cause notice dated 24-6-2008
was issued. The adjudication took place on demand of service tax along with in-
GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  145