Appeal granted in service tax case where refund rejected for unjust enrichment, appellant entitled to benefits.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant in a case involving double payment of service tax by both the service provider and receiver. The rejection of the refund application on the basis of unjust enrichment was overturned as it was established that the service tax incidence was not passed on to the recipient. The appellant's appeal was granted, and the order dismissing the appeal was set aside, entitling the appellant to consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues:
- Double payment of service tax by the service provider and the service receiver
- Rejection of refund application on the ground of unjust enrichment

Analysis:
1. Double Payment of Service Tax:
The appellant, engaged in providing services under the taxable category of goods transport agency, had inadvertently paid service tax into the Government Account for transporting goods to M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. The recipient of service, M/s. Ispat Industries, had also paid the service tax on the agency service. The appellant filed a refund application, which was rejected by the original authority on both merit and limitation grounds. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on merits but rejected it on the basis of unjust enrichment, stating that the appellant failed to show that the service tax incidence was not passed on to any other person.

2. Unjust Enrichment and Refund:
The Tribunal noted that both the appellant and the service receiver had deposited service tax into the Government Exchequer for the goods transport agency service. Since the recipient of service, M/s. Ispat Industries, a manufacturer of excisable goods, had taken cenvat credit based on the tax payment evidence, it was crucial to establish that the service tax incidence was not passed on to them. The Tribunal observed that since the recipient's name was not mentioned in the appellant's challan, it indicated that M/s. Ispat Industries did not avail any cenvat benefit regarding the service tax paid by the appellant. Consequently, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund benefit could not be denied.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the rejection of the appeal on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The order dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential benefits.

---