2018 (8) TMI 482 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - appellant discharged Service Tax liability twice in the same service - rejection of refund on the ground of Unjust enrichment - Held that - The appellant paid the tax twice on the same service. There is no dispute that their client paid taxes/once. When this fact was not disputed, the denial of refund is unjustified. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-I Vs. Volkswagen India Private Limited 2013 (11) TMI 1534 - CESTAT MUMBAI observed that Excise duty paid second time by mistake on clearance of goods, question of unjust enrichment would not arise. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund of excess Service Tax paid, unjust enrichment.

Refund of Excess Service Tax Paid:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the refund of excess Service Tax paid. The appellant provided services to M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited under a specific contract during a certain period. Due to lack of awareness about the levy of Service Tax, the appellant paid the tax twice on the same service. The Adjudicating authority allowed the refund of the excess amount paid, but the Revenue filed an appeal against this decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal, leading to the appellant filing the current appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appellant paid the tax twice on the same service, and there was no dispute that their client paid taxes once. Citing the case law of Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-I Vs. Volkswagen India Private Limited, the Tribunal emphasized that the obligation to pay duty had already been fulfilled with the first payment, and the subsequent erroneous payment should be considered for refund. The Tribunal highlighted that the question of unjust enrichment would not arise when duty is paid twice but recovered only once from the customer. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant based on the principles established in the cited case law.

Unjust Enrichment:
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal on the grounds of unjust enrichment. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this decision, emphasizing that the appellant had paid the tax twice on the same service, and there was no dispute that the client paid taxes once. The Tribunal, following the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-I Vs. Volkswagen India Private Limited, held that the appellant had fulfilled their duty liability with the first payment, and the subsequent erroneous payment warranted a refund. The Tribunal stressed that passing on the duty incidence twice to the customers was not the case, and no customer would pay duty twice for the same set of goods. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of refund based on unjust enrichment was unjustified in this scenario. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, considering the principles established in the cited case law and the absence of unjust enrichment in the situation where duty was paid twice but recovered only once from the customer.