2015 (2) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t. ORDER This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh-II, dated 22-3-2013, allowing the appeal of the respondent-assessee. 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of transformers which are cleared on payment of excise duty. It filed refund claim initially for Rs. 37,99,180/- which was however reduced to Rs. 15,21,116/-. The claim for refund is of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e PSEB revealed that rates specified for remunerating the assessee for services rendered included service tax and therefore the service tax component stood included in the consideration received by it; and (b) the assessee failed to submit details of service tax remitted against cash on the bills raised by the PSEB. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal which was allowed by the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Tribunal had correctly concluded that refund was liable to the assessee therein as there was no unjust enrichment. 5. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the singular ground that since the work order between the assessee and the PSEB contained a covenant that the consideration payable by PSEB to the assessee was inclusive of taxes including excise duty, VAT, service tax and other taxes, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X