9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inasmuch as, in the challan, the name of the recipient M/s. Ispat Industries has not been mentioned. Since the name of the consignee i.e. Ispat Industries is not finding place in the challan of the appellant, it can be construed that such recipient of service has not availed any cenvat benefit in respect of the service tax paid by the appellant. There is no question of passing of any service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing services under the taxable category of goods transport agency and for that purpose, is registered with the Service Tax Department. During the disputed period, for transportation of goods to the premises of M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd., Navi Mumbai, the appellant had inadvertently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.08.2011 has allowed the appeal on merits, but rejected the appeal on the ground of unjust enrichment, holding that the appellant did not produce adequate documents to show that the incidence of service tax has not been passed on to any other person. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that such recipient of service has not availed any cenvat benefit in respect of the service tax paid by the appellant. Therefore, there is no question of passing of any service tax incidence to the service receiver and accordingly, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will have no application in this case, for denial of the refund benefit. 6. Therefore, I do not find any merits in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
