https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254078 Rectification of mistake was refused because no patent error appeared on the record in relation to unjust enrichment. The Revenue had not produced documentary material before the Tribunal to show that service tax had been passed on, and the plea was not specifically raised for all refund claims; the existing record, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate and billing papers, had already been considered. Additional refund-implementation conditions were also rejected: the Revenue could not introduce fresh requirements such as further FIRCs and export invoices when those conditions were not part of the Tribunal's original direction. The refund direction remained operative on the basis that the service was treated as export. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254078 Rectification of mistake was refused because no patent error appeared on the record in relation to unjust enrichment. The Revenue had not produced documentary material before the Tribunal to show that service tax had been passed on, and the plea was not specifically raised for all refund claims; the existing record, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate and billing papers, had already been considered. Additional refund-implementation conditions were also rejected: the Revenue could not introduce fresh requirements such as further FIRCs and export invoices when those conditions were not part of the Tribunal's original direction. The refund direction remained operative on the basis that the service was treated as export. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254078