TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fund for want of the evidence regarding not passing of the incidence of the impugned services by the Appellant to any other person. Perusal thereof shows that since the year 2015 till the time of filing the impugned refund Appellant is showing the impugned amount of ₹ 6,36,415/- as an advance recoverable in cash as being paid towards the Service Tax - thus, there is sufficient evidence otherwise on record to falsify any unjust enrichment as is alleged on part of the Appellant. Thus, the Commissioner Appeals has committed an error while holding the unjust enrichment on part of the Appellant without any cognizant reason being given to support that finding - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has been allowed on merits. However, the refund claim has still being rejected as being found to be hit by the Clause of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the amount of ₹ 6,36,415/- has been directed to be deposited with the consumer welfare fund as established under Section 12C of Central Excise Act,1944. Still being aggrieved the Appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Ms. Priyanka Goel learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. K. Poddar, learned D.R. for the department. 4. Learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that the impugned refund claim has not been sanctioned, alleging that there is an unjust enrichment on part of the Appellant. It is impressed upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings. However, the amount of said refund has been denied to be disbursed rather is ordered to be deposited with consumer welfare fund for want of the evidence regarding not passing of the incidence of the impugned services by the Appellant to any other person. In view thereof the narrow compass of the present adjudication is as to : whether the refund claim for an amount paid by the Appellant as service recipient, erroneously, under reverse charge mechanism can be hit by the principle of unjust enrichment. This bench only in the case of Sunrise Spices (Supra) has already formed the opinion as follows: I further observed that in Appeal No. 52469, Commissioner (Appeals) has even gone throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
