9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 31-1-2014 - MR. H.K. THAKUR, J. For the Appellant : Shri J.C. Patel, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Jitendra Nair, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per: H.K. Thakur; 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against Order-in-Revision No. 01/Revision/COMMR.-I/VDR-I/09, dt.29.10.2009. 2. Brief facts of the case are that initially the said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority vide OIO No. Div.III/ST/GTP/19/ Refund/06, dt.04.01.2007 holding that the appellant was not entitled to the refund of Service Tax of Rs.31,89,986/- paid on the Gas Compression Charges. In the said order, the adjudicating authority also held that an amount of Rs.5,88,039/- was hit by time bar limitation as the claim was filed on 04.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of M/s Siltap Chemicals Vs CCE, Vadodara-II - 2006 (193) ELT (Tri-Mum). 2.3 Accordingly, vide Order No. Dn. III/ST/53/Refund/07, dt.25.03.2008, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund of Rs.26,01,947/- and rejected the claim of Rs.5,88,039/- under the provisions of Section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax in terms of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. 2.4 The Order-in-Original dt.25.03.2009 was not found acceptable by the Reviewing authority who vide Order-in-Revision dt.29.10.2009 revised the order of sanctioning Rs.26,01,947/- on the ground that unjust enrichment was applicable to the refund of Service Tax paid by the appellant against which t he present appeal has been filed. 3. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xi) CBEC Circular dt.01.09.2010 issued by DGST [Para 6.1 (IV)] 4. Shri J. Nagori, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that unjust enrichment is attracted in the present case as duty once recovered from the customers is always passed on by the customers or even credit of such Service Tax paid could be taken by the customers. He relied upon the following case-laws. i) Orion Steel Corporation Vs CCE Vadodara 2008 (231) ELT 332 (Tri-Ahmd) ii) Grasim Ind. (Chemical Divn.) Vs CCE Bhopal 2003 (153) ETL 694 (Tri-LB) iii) Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd Vs Collr.C.E., Jaipur 1994 (71) ELT 989 (Tribunal) iv) Grasim Industries Vs CCE Bhopal 2011 (271) ETL 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants. In Para 6.1 of the clarification, it has been stated it is important to note that any amount of Service Tax paid in excess of the actual liability is refundable only if it is proved that the claimant of refund had already refunded such amount to the person from whom it was received or had not collected at all. It is not the finding of the lower authorities that appellants have not refunded the amount. The issue of credit note/debit note is a standard practice and accepted practice in accounting terminology for deciding liability or claim for refund. In such a situation issue of credit note would be sufficient unless there is a clear finding that the amount has not been refunded by Poornima to the clients, unjust enrichment clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
