2008 (6) TMI 28 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Unjust Enrichment Claim | Failure to Prove Refund Eligibility

KMS COACH BUILDERS Versus CCE, BANGALORE

KMS COACH BUILDERS Versus CCE, BANGALORE - 2008 (88) RLT 116 (CESTAT - Ban.) , 2008 (12) S.T.R. 595 (Tri. - Bang.) , [2008] 17 STT 298 (BANG. - CESTAT) Issues:Refund claim rejection under unjust enrichment provisions.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 4,33,446/- under unjust enrichment provisions as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a refund of the balance amount of Rs. 36,925/- within the stipulated time. The appellant contended that they had collected Service Tax erroneously, which was not required to be paid, leading to the refund claim. However, they failed to provide evidence of passing on the duty to the service receiver, KSRTC. The appellant cited Tribunal judgments in support of their case, including cases like Hexacom India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and CCE Vs. M.A. Finance Services Pvt. Ltd., to argue that Section 11D of the Central Excise Act did not apply in this situation.The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the collected amounts should have been reimbursed to the Government as duty/tax in accordance with Section 11D of the Act. Furthermore, the refund claim was deemed to be affected by unjust enrichment. The DR referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. and a Bench order in Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III Vs. XL Telecom Ltd., which were deemed relevant to the present case.Upon careful consideration of the submissions and the judgments cited by both parties, the Tribunal found that the case aligned with the judgment in XL Telecom Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decision in Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. The appellant failed to provide any evidence to disprove unjust enrichment, and the collected amount should have been remitted to the Government as per Section 11D of the Act for cases involving collected amounts representing Service Tax. The Tribunal distinguished the judgments cited by the appellant as not applicable to the present case. Consequently, the appeal was deemed meritless and rejected.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both sides, the legal provisions involved, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the principles of unjust enrichment and Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.