Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 675 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - pre-deposit made by the assessee is hit by unjust enrichment or not - HELD THAT:- It is settled position in law that amounts which were deposited during the course of investigation were paid subsequently by the provider of the service, hence, could not have been based on to the service recipients. The expenses incurred subsequently in form of deposit made during the course of investigation are shown as revenue expenditure in the balance sheet of the respondent, as this amount has been shown as revenue expenditure in the balance sheet the same would justify the claim of the respondent. In case of M/S JAGETI & CO. VERSUS CST AHMEDABAD [2011 (12) TMI 111 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] tribunal has held In any case, it has been paid under protest and the expenditure is booked. This does not mean that what was paid before issue of Show Cause Notice was subsequently collected from the customers. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the similar situations in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S ADVANCE STEEL TUBES LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 627 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held The department was not justified in applying the bar of unjust enrichment to the remaining amount of ₹ 10,34,880/- without there being any cogent material or evidence to support it and without the department having considered the cost structure of goods for that amount. Since the issue is squarely covered by the above referred decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, there are no merits in this appeal filed by the revenue - appeal dismissed.
|