9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered by them amounts to export of services in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules,2005. The refund claim was rejected on the doctrine of unjust enrichment – Held that:- in the case of Sparkler Ceramics Pvt. Ltd (2011 - TMI - 203997 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Central Excise) unjust enrichment will not be applicable to this case as it involves export of goods. Commissioner (Appeals) order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them amounts to export of services in terms of Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules,2005. The refund claim was rejected on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The respondent challenged the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim on the ground that this was not the ground taken in the show-cause notice. 4. The respondent is that as per proviso to Section 11B(2) proviso (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Para 2 of the Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, which provided that exemption claimed by the exporter shall be provided by way of refund of service tax paid on the specified services used for export of the said goods. The assessee in the instant case did not avail the exemption but applied for refund. The contention is that as soon as the question of refund arises it is governed by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has held that these grounds were not part of the show-cause notice. Further, Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd.(supra) held that unjust enrichment has not been made applicable to the goods exported. The Tribunal in the case of Sparkler Ceramics Pvt. Ltd (supra) held that question of unjust enrichment will not be applicable to this case as it involves export of goods. The Ld. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
