2017 (9) TMI 1957

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssistant Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein refund claim filed by the appellant has been rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of sugar and molasses. The appellant was paying Service Tax on Inwards Goods Transport Agency Services and availing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eeking refund of the same. In that circumstances bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable, as they are maintained sufficient balance in their Cenvat credit account during the impugned period. It is further submitted that as the price of sugar is fixed, in that circumstances doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable as whatever duty is payable by the appellant, is to borne by the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant, the same is borne by appellant and no part of duty is recoverable from the buyers as the price of sugar is includible in all taxes in the fixed price of sugar. In these circumstances, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. 8. In these terms, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated in Court)
Case laws, Decisions .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X