9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any third party and that the said amount shown as receivable. (b) The refund is arisen because of amalgamation of the appellant company with transferor company M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals (a partnership firm) and hence the service rendered by the appellant to the transferor company is service to self. 1.1 The brief facts of the case are that vide its order dated 03.10.2015 the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat approved /authenticated amalgamation scheme between the appellant and M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals which was subsequently renamed as Intas Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. The amalgamation scheme was made effective from 01.04.2015. During the Financial Year 2014-2015, the appellant had provided following services to the said Intas Pharmaceutical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve rejected arbitrary or without any counter evidence to chartered accountant certificate is findings on this subject are also in the realm of assumption and presumption as it holds that the element of service tax borne by the Dehradun Unit (transferor company) might have been accounted for under the expenditure head and consequently such service tax expenditure might have influenced the selling price of goods of Dehradun Unit. 2.1 He submits that the appellant have properly submitted the facts and documents including chartered accountant certificate to establish that the burden of service tax was not passed on to any third party and that the said amount was shown as receivable. It is now well settled that the chartered accountant certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (206) ELT 90 (Kar.) - CCE vs. Motorola India Pvt Ltd 2010 (17) STR 3 (Madras) - Natraj and Venket Associates vs. Assistant Commissioner of Service tax 2.5 With this submission, he prayed that appeal be allowed. 3. Shri Tara Prakash, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. The Learned Counsel has vehemently argued that since in the present case the service is to self, unjust enrichment is not applicable. We are not completely in agreement with the learned counsel for the reason that as per the provision of Section 11 B, the incidence of the refund amount should not be pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
