9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by Commissioner (Appeals) directing the refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund for the reason that it is hit by unjust enrichment. 2. The appellants M/s ICOMM Tele Ltd., is engaged in manufacture of Transmission Towers & Tower parts & are also availing credit of Service tax paid on input services used in manufacture of excisable goods and in providing taxable output services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to pay service tax only w.e.f. 18.04.2006, and thus set aside the demand of Rs. 14,24,210/- relating to the year 2005 - 2006 and also set aside the penalties imposed. 4. The appellants then issued letter dated 26.05.2010 to the department enclosing copy of Order-in-Appeal, requesting to refund Rs. 4,74,251/- being the interest paid by them on the service tax amount of Rs. 14,24, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and perused records. The issue is whether appellant is eligible for refund of interest paid on the service tax amount which was not required to be paid by appellant as per law. The excess amount paid is not in dispute. Further, it is to be borne in mind that the appellant is liable to pay service tax for the transactions on the basis of reverse charge mechanism. So, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )] 7. Following the dictums laid in above judgements and also in view of the discussions, I find that the refund amount is not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The order directing to credit the sanctioned amount to Consumer Welfare Fund is not sustainable and therefore set aside. Appellant is eligible to get the sanctioned amount. 8. In the result, the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
