9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical) Shri S.A. Gundecha, Advocate, for the Appellants. Shri Manish Mohan Authorized Representative (SDR), for the respondent. [Order per : Shri A.K. Srivastava, Member (Technical)] - These appeals have been filed by M/s. Keihin Fie Pvt. Ltd., Pune against the Orders-in-Appeal both dated 25.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Pune-I. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned orders, has upheld the Orders-in-Original both dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax Cell), Central Excise, Pune-I by which the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the refund claims of Rs. 2,47,667/- and Rs. 86,109/- on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unjust enrichment is not applicable to their case in terms of clause (c) to proviso Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which has been made applicable to service tax refunds by virtue of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. According to the said clause (c), the refund of the input service credit is statutorily out of the purview of unjust enrichment. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the appellants. I am not inclined to agree with the same. The reason being that the actual expenses, incurred by the foreign consultant while imparting training to the appellants personnel in Japan and subsequently reimbursed by the appellants, were held to be not towards consulting engineering services as these expenses related ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the losses incurred have to be debited to the Profit and Loss Account and cannot be treated as intangible asset or deposit to be reflected on asset side of the Balance Sheet. They submitted that when the assessee decides to treat a particular payment as non-recoverable payment as per the above principles, he is required to reduce the profit for that period appropriately and such result achieved by debiting the same amount to the Profit and Loss Account and cannot be achieved by treating the same as an asset or deposit. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the appellants. However, I do not find them to be tenable as any payment, if debited to Profit and Loss Account is to be considered as the revenue expenditure and sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the cost. 8. Appeal No. ST/169/08 - Amount involved Rs. 2,47,667/-. The disputed amount of Rs. 2,47,667/- was paid on 9.10.2003. The admissibility of refund claim on merits is not under dispute in this case also. However, the facts are slightly different. In this case, the amount of expenses have been incurred by the personnel of M/s. Keihin, Japan during their visit to India and paid or reimbursed on actual basis by the appellants. These expenses relate to Traveling fee, Business Trip, Living Expenses, Daily Expenses, Stay Expenses etc. of the personnel of M/s. Keihin, Japan in India. These expenses, incurred and reimbursed, were held to be not towards consulting engineering services and hence were held to be not leviable to servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
