2017 (9) TMI 933 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that - agreement between the appellant and the MP government is for providing mobile medical van and as per the agreement price was cum service tax price. As no service tax is payable by the appellant, therefore, question of recovery of service tax from MP Government does not arise - the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the facts of this case - appellant is entitled for refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim dismissal based on unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the dismissal of their refund claim due to failing the unjust enrichment bar. The appellant provided 'Event Management' services and had an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Government for a 'Mobile Health van' project. The services included medical advice, family planning awareness, and medicine distribution through the mobile health van. Initially, the appellant paid service tax under the assumption that the service fell under the rent-a-cab category. However, upon receiving clarification that the service was not taxable, the appellant filed a refund claim, which was rejected based on unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that as per the agreement, the price was inclusive of service tax, and they had collected service tax from the government. The appellate tribunal noted that since no service tax was payable by the appellant, the question of recovering service tax from the government did not arise, making the unjust enrichment bar inapplicable. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the refund claim, setting aside the impugned order.

This judgment highlights the importance of examining the specific terms of agreements and the nature of services provided when determining the applicability of unjust enrichment in refund claims. It underscores the need for a detailed analysis of the facts and contractual obligations to ascertain whether the party claiming the refund has actually borne the tax burden or passed it on to others. The tribunal's decision in this case was based on the understanding that since the appellant was not liable to pay service tax, the concept of unjust enrichment did not apply, leading to the allowance of the refund claim. The ruling serves as a reminder that unjust enrichment principles must be applied judiciously, taking into account the actual financial impact on the party seeking the refund.