TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- Appellate Commissioner concluded that analysis of the invoices issued by the appellant clearly disclosed that no Service Tax component was included in and collected from the customers by the assessees; that the assessees had remitted Service Tax by treating the gross amount received as inclusive of Service Tax; that in an agreement with Oil India Ltd., the recitals disclose that the agreed rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred these appeals against the common order dated 31-10-2008 passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II allowing two appeals preferred by the respondents/assessees. In substance, the order of the appellate Authority results in sanction of refund of ₹ 67,646/- and ₹ 90,580/- in favour of the respective respondents. 3. Assessees claimed refund of specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he consumer welfare fund on grounds of unjust enrichment. In response, assessees submitted that they were not aware that they were providing the taxable tour operator service; that they had not collected any Service Tax from customers; that on being intimated by the concerned Superintendent that they were providing a taxable service they obtained registration only during the middle of 2003, that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal) = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 501 (Tribunal); in ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 582 (Trib.) and in Collector v. Metro Tyres Ltd. reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 95 (Trib.) which was upheld by the Supreme Court vide 1997 (94) E.L.T. A51 (S.C.), was distinguished by the adjudicating authority, on the ground that these decisions pertain to Central Excise matters and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STAT = 2008 (226) E.L.T. 428 (Tribunal) and in M/s. Amadalavalasa Cooperative Sugars Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2007 (80) R.L.T. 35 (CESTAT) = 2007 (219) E.L.T. 526 (Tribunal) = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 501 (Tribunal), to conclude that were the contract price is inclusive of duty, there cannot be unjust enrichment. 7. In our considered view, there is no error vitiating the order of the learned appellate C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
