9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant certificate is a valid proof for the determination of an issue of unjust enrichment. The appellant has proved that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person and has been borne by him alone and therefore the refund claim is not hit by unjust enrichment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20781/2016-SM - 22733/2017 - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri Mohmd, Ibrahim, Advocate Lakshmi Kumaran And Sridharan - For the Appellant Shri Madhupsharan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 18/02/2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by unjust enrichment and further the Commissioner(Appeals) held that as per clause 4 of the agreement between the appellant and the client, the liability of taxes has to be borne by the client. therefore the Commissioner(Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the liability to pay tax has been shifted to the client and further the Commissioner(Appeals) held that the appellant has not produced documents evidencing that service tax has not been charged from the clients. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contradictory in nature and has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014(307) ELT 371 (Tri. Mum.)] iv. Deepak International Vs. CC ST, Kanpur [2014(304) ELT 438 (Tril. Del.)] v. CC, Bangalore Vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. [2014(401) ELT 675 (Tri. Bang)]. Further affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka ELT 29 (Kar.)] vi. Cargill Foods India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2010(262) ELT 691 (Tri. Mum.)] vii. Tirmala Bearings (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Cus(Appeals), Visakhapatnam [2016(335) ELT 145 (Tri. Bang.)] 4.3. He also submitted that the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable to refund of interest and penalty and consequently the appellants entitled for the refund of an amount of ₹ 5,97,482/- paid by them as interest as well as penalty. For this he relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
