Refund of service tax paid on such vacant land - unjust ...

Service Tax

March 24, 2023

Refund of service tax paid on such vacant land - unjust enrichment - it is clear evidence that the incidence of the service tax paid by the appellant has been passed on to the service recipient for the reason that the gross amount collected from the service recipient includes the service tax amount also - the appellant is not entitle for the refund. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Refund of service tax paid on such vacant land - unjust ...

Service Tax

March 24, 2023

You may also like:

Refund claims – unjust enrichment – service tax paid under protest – refund allowed - AT

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Simply stating that the goods were sold at a loss does not establish that the duty incidence was not passed - No refund - AT

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Duty paid twice - e appellants are entitled for refund claim for duty paid on Ethanol - unjust enrichment is not applicable - AT

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - merely because the Excise duty is booked as expenditure in Profit & Loss account, it cannot be said the incidence of duty has been passed on - AT

Denial of refund of service tax - Unjust enrichment - appellant has not provided any service at all. - question of unjust enrichment does not arise - AT

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Onus to prove - service tax which has been recovered from the customer, who has taken cenvat credit of the said service tax...

Refund - principles of unjust enrichment - the unjust enrichment is not applicable even when the refund amount is claimed as expenses in the Profit and Loss Account.

Refund claim - Cess - unjust enrichment - The amount realized from the foreign buyer was only FOB value - the refund of cess is not hit by unjust enrichment

Unjust enrichment - refund claim - bar of unjust enrichment not applicable to imported capital goods used captively by the importer - refund cannot be denied.

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Merely because it was shown as expenditure, the department cannot contend that pre-deposit made by appellant is hit by unjust...

Quick Updates: