9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission as a recipient of taxable service from the foreign service provider. 4. Subsequently, the appellant filed the refund claim in August 2009 seeking the refund of the amount in question, relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowener's Association Vs UoI - 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.). The refund claims have been rejected by the adjudicating authority and the adjudication order was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). 5. The contention of the appellant is that in the present case, the period in dispute is prior to 18.04.2006 and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipoweners Association Vs UoI (supra) has held that prior to 18.04.2006, the assessee is not liable to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued a circular dt.26.09.2011 in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association (supra) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is in appeal, to clarify that prior to 18.04.2006, the recipient of the taxable service from the foreign service provider is not liable to pay Service Tax on reverse charge mechanism. 9. The Revenue submitted that as the appellant has not challenged the objection raised by the audit in respect of the liability of Service Tax, hence it cannot be challenged under the refund claim. 10. We find that there is no show cause notice issued to the appellant nor any adjudication order has been passed for appreciation of the amount. The Service Tax was paid on 20.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the doctrine can be invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act or similar provision merely gives legislative recognition to this doctrine. That, however, does not mean that in absence of statutory provision, a person can claim or retain undue benefit. Before claiming a relief of refund, it is necessary for the petitioner/appellant to show that he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and if such relief is not granted, he would suffer loss. 11. As the issue of unjust enrichment has not been gone into by the lower authorities, therefore the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
