2020 (9) TMI 780 - HC - Service Tax

Refund of service tax - respondent has deposited lumpsum amount during investigation and same was not recovered from the customers - Principles of Unjust Enrichment - HELD THAT - It is evident that concurrent finding of fact has been recorded that respondent has not passed on burden of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- to the customers which was deposited by him during investigation/adjudication. Finding so recorded is a finding of fact, based on consideration of relevant material on record. We, repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellant to point out any evidence which may indicate that the burden was passed on by the respondent, but the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any document, therefore, concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order creating demand of duty, challenge to order in original, substantial question of law regarding manufacturing location, refund application for deposited amount, unjust enrichment, appeal against refund order, principles of unjust enrichment in refund cases, appeal against dismissal of refund application, burden of proof regarding passing on duty burden to customers.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order creating demand of duty after an amount was deposited during investigation. The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the original order. A substantial question of law was admitted regarding the manufacturing location of components of transformers. No interim order was granted during the appeal. The respondent filed for the return of the deposited amount, supported by a verification report stating the burden was not passed on to customers. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the refund, finding unjust enrichment not applicable. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that other evidence besides the CA certificate was not considered. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the CESTAT's relief and the absence of evidence challenging the CA certificate's veracity. The Tribunal upheld the decision, noting the non-recovery of the deposited amount from customers. The findings of fact indicated that the burden was not passed on, supported by relevant material. The appellant failed to provide evidence contradicting this, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the concluded findings of fact. No substantial question of law was found to arise, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.