2004 (3) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the refund claim of the appellant was rejected. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of the articles of glass fiber. Appellant paid service tax for availing the service of goods transporter. On realising the mistake the appellant filed a refund claim which was received by the Revenue authorities on 19-12-2000. The adjudicating authority after giving a ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... E.L.T. 357 to submit that refund is maintainable, if any, amount is collected erroneously as representing service tax which is not in force. 5. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly held that the burden of duty has been passed on to the customer. The adjudicating authority gave a finding after verifying the record of the appellant that the burden of service t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s are collected erroneously as representing service tax, which is not in force, in such case there is no bar to the return of such amounts. In this situation, the refund claim is maintainable for the amount deposited by the appellant representing service tax. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the principle of unjust enrichment. The contention of the Revenue is that a prin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X