Supreme Court Explains: Debt Becoming Financial & Operational Debt  ||  P&H HC: Model Code of Conduct Can’t Stand in Way of Execution of Judicial Order  ||  Chh. HC: Can’t Build Matrimonial Home With Bricks & Stones, Love & Respect Between Spouses Required  ||  Ker. HC: Fitting of Sensors in Buses Used as Stage Carriages Can’t be Insisted by Registration Author  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Consider Party’s Declaration, Promise of Policies as Corrupt Practise under RP Act  ||  Bom. HC: Public Sector Banks Not Empowered to Issue Look Out Circulars Against Loan Defaulters  ||  Mad. HC: Child Needs Safe & Caring Environment While Growing up, Corporal Punishment Not a Solution  ||  Mad. HC: 2020 Amendment to Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, Struck Down  ||  Del. HC: Persons Not Accused of Deceiving Others Should Handle Haj Pilgrims  ||  Del. HC: Centre Directed to Decide Plea to Recruit Women Through CDS, Within Eight Weeks    

Dynamic Elecpower Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (21 Mar 2024)

Assessee is deemed to have passed on the full incidence of service tax refund to the service receiver unless the contrary is proved

MANU/CE/0091/2024

Excise

The Appellant has assailed the order-in-appeal, whereby the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment in terms of Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was upheld. The Appellant were engaged in providing services under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services', 'Business Auxiliary Services' and 'Management, Maintenance & Repair Services' to PHED and others during the period 2004-2005 to 2008-2009. The issue that arises is whether the refund claim of the Appellant has been rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Section 12B of the Act, 1944, provides that unless the contrary is proved by the assessee, it shall be deemed that the assessee has passed on the full incidence of service tax refund to the service receiver. In terms of the provisions, the applicant was required to submit the necessary documents and evidences in support of his claim that the principle of unjust enrichment would not apply as he has not passed on the incidence of duty to the service receiver. Both, the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority had specifically noted that, either the Appellant had not produced the documents or had only submitted the photocopies of the Ledger Account and invoices.

The refund claim filed by the Appellant includes the amount of Rs.7,24,463 excess paid under the category of 'Management, Maintenance & Repair Services'. As the refund claim is found to be hit by unjust enrichment clause for want of requisite documents, an opportunity may be granted to the Appellant to produce the documents and other evidences proving that the incidence of duty has not been passed on either directly or indirectly to the service receiver. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, granting liberty to the Appellant to substantiate that the claim is not hit by unjust enrichment in the light of the documents produced. The appeal, is allowed by way of remand.

Tags : REFUND   REJECTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved