2015 (12) TMI 881

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt made by them was under the reverse charge mechanism under Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules 1994. The fact remains that the service tax in question was paid in cash and the amount is lying with the department. - question of unjust enrichment in this case does not arise. A similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune-I Vs. Volkswagen (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (11) TMI 1534 - CEST .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner allowed them re-credit in their CENVAT credit. But this order was revised under Section 84 of the Finance Act 1994 by the Commissioner who took the view that the benefit given by the Assistant Commissioner was hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. From the above facts, it is clear that there was no question of passing on the burden of payment of service tax to another person 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