9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 87 ibid have also not been addressed properly with the help of the documentary evidences. Furthermore, it is also observed that the submissions made by the appellant were not addressed in effective manner for adjudication of the dispute. Therefore, the issues involved in this case are required to be reconsidered by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for arriving at a proper conclusion, whether or not the appellant should be entitled for refund benefit. The matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issues afresh - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 86273 of 2015 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/87688/2019 - Dated:- 12-4-2019 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand direction of the Tribunal, the original authority took up de novo adjudication proceedings and passed the order dated 21.01.2014. Vide the said order, the above refund claimed amount was sanctioned, but appropriated under Section 87(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 in respect of the past liability towards payment of service tax defaulted by some of the service providers. Against the said adjudication order dated 21.01.2014, both the appellant as well as Revenue had preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals were disposed of by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 17.03.2015, in modifying the adjudication order. The impugned order has held that the amount of refund claim of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable to the case in hand and the appellant should be entitled for the refund benefit. In this context, he has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal, rendered in the case of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. - 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1014 (Tribunal), Pride Foramer - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 259 (Tri. Mumbai), Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 523 (Tri.- Del.) and Manoj Kumar Agrawal - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 45 (Tri.- Del.). 2.2 The learned Consultant further submitted that the service tax was payable by the appellant in terms of Section 68 (2) ibid under Reverse Charge Mechanism and therefore, there was no scope or occasion for recovering the same from the supplier at a later date. He also submitted that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Claimant is not sustainable in law and are eligible for refund of service tax paid in pursuance of the demand. Moreover, the claimant has now produced documentary evidence to prove reversal of Cenvat Credit availed by them by submitting Cenvat Credit Reversal Voucher copy and Summary of Cenvat Register from Oct, 2002 to March, 2009 from which it is evident that the service tax liability has not been passed on and hence the Claimant appears eligible for refund of ₹ 1,20,37,462/-. Therefore the claim appears to be sanctionable to the claimant as consequential refund as per CESTAT s order No. A/1553-1554/13/CSTB/C-1 dt. 12.07.2013. 6. However, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has mod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
