2007 (4) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d the basic concept of the Service tax was under test before various courts at the material periods. The service provider was only liable to tax without the service receiver brought to the net of tax. At the material time, there was no provision in law sanctioning realization of service tax from a service receiver. In support of his contention, he submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore, his prayer was that the impugned order dated 31-3-2006 may be set aside which has held that refund of Rs. 45,889/- was erroneous. 2. The ld. SDR appeared for the Revenue fairly submitted that Service Receiver for which the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laghu Udyog Bharti v. Union of India reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.) = 2006 (2) S.T.R. 276 (S.C.) struck down Rule 2(d)(xvii) of the Se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onary Authority came to the conclusion that there was unjust enrichment. 3.2 It would be appreciated that an order not well reasoned, nor showing any enquiry made to opine that the order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority was in any way suffering from any infirmity is an excessive exercise of statutory power. Not only justice is to be done, but that must be seen to have been done. The c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X