9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely PVC Pipes and PVC Resin etc. They are availing services of Goods Transport Agency for outward freight. Appellant are selling the goods on FOR basis, thus the selling price includes transportation charges including service tax on such transportation charges. The contract does not specify separately these components but specifies the total amount. During the period March 2009 to August 2009 App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of service tax to the customer. In view of this position the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable and they are entitled to the refund. In support of their contention they quoted the following case laws: (i) U.P. Twiga Fiberglass Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, 2006 (3) S.T.R. 250 (Tri. Del) (ii) U.T. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re being sold on FOR basis. Freight was not being separately collected or shown in the invoices and freight (including service tax thereon) forms part of the sale price. Obviously, appellants have recovered the freight charges from the customers though indirectly. Further service tax on basic freight amount would be part of the over all freight charges and would therefore be part of the sale price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said case Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the finding of the adjudicating authority that burden of service tax has not been passed on. In the present case as per the analysis by the Commissioner and as per my analysis above, the burden of service tax has been passed on to the customer and therefore doctrine of unjust enrichment would be applicable. Another case cited is that of U.T. Ltd. (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
