2012 (5) TMI 471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -appeal No. SR/304/NGP/2009 dated 27.11.2009 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the lower adjudicating authorities order and allowed the appeal of the respondent with consequential relief. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the providing Business Auxiliary Service and paying service tax thereon.  The respondent claimed refund of service tax amo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 03 (CESTAT-Ahmd.) wherein it was held that bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted in case of goods exported.  They have also placed reliance in the case of Sparkler Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-I reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 394 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein it was held that  question of unjust enrichment will not be applicable to the case which involved export of good .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Earnest Young Pvt. Ltd. 6. I have carefully gone through the submissions and perused the records. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the lower adjudicating authority order on the premise that the  grounds of unjust enrichment and that  the refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 is not allowable were  not  part of the  impugned show .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X