Unjust enrichment in service tax refunds turns on proof of burden passing, not on self-service alone.

Refund of service tax remains subject to the unjust enrichment bar only where the incidence is shown to have been passed on in any form. Rendering the service to self, following amalgamation, does not by itself establish passing on of the burden to another person. A chartered accountant's certificate has evidentiary value for showing the amount as receivable, but it is not conclusive standing alone because verification must be supported by the underlying books of account. A mere assumption that the tax may have been built into the cost of goods is insufficient; the receivable entry and relevant accounts must be checked before the refund claim is decided.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax was barred by unjust enrichment where the amount was certified by a chartered accountant as receivable and the underlying service was rendered to self pursuant to amalgamation.

Analysis: The statutory bar of unjust enrichment applies if the incidence of refund has been passed on in any form. Service rendered to self does not by itself establish that the burden was passed on to another person. A chartered accountant certificate has evidentiary value, but it is not conclusive in isolation because it rests on the books of account. The factual assertion that the amount was shown as receivable could be conclusively verified only from the relevant accounts. The mere assumption that the amount might have been built into the cost of goods was not accepted.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part and the matter was remanded for fresh verification of the books of account and the receivable entry before deciding the refund claim.

---