2008 (6) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any evidence to discharge the burden of unjust enrichment - amount collected ought to have been deposited to the Government under Section 11D of the Act in the cases where amounts were collected representing as Service Tax – refund is denied on ground of unjust enrichment - ST/426/2007 - 727/2008 - Dated:- 23-6-2008 - Dr. S. L. Peeran, Member (Judicial) and Shri T. K. Jayaraman, Member (Techni .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llants could not produce any evidence of duty passed on to the service receiver, i.e. their client KSRTC. As the amount has been erroneously collected representing service tax, there fore the provisions of Section 11D of Central Excise Act does not apply. He relies on the Tribunal judgments in the cases of Hexacom India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2003 (57) RLT 625 (CESTAT-Del.)=2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d-III Vs. XL Telecom Ltd., 2006 (206) ELT 303 (Tri.-Bang.) which is identical to the facts of the present case. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the judgments relied on by both sides. We notice that the fact of this case clearly falls within the ambit of this Bench judgment rendered in case of XL Telecom Ltd. (supra) which follows the Apex Court judgment render .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X