https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157 The appeal was allowed, and the impugned Order-in-Original was set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed that the refund of Rs. 1,46,518/- should be made to the appellants instead of being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, as the appellants had borne the burden of the service tax and had not passed it on to any other party. The Commissioner found that the appellants successfully rebutted the presumption of unjust enrichment under Sections 11B and 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by providing evidence that the service tax amount was not passed on to customers. en-us Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157 The appeal was allowed, and the impugned Order-in-Original was set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed that the refund of Rs. 1,46,518/- should be made to the appellants instead of being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, as the appellants had borne the burden of the service tax and had not passed it on to any other party. The Commissioner found that the appellants successfully rebutted the presumption of unjust enrichment under Sections 11B and 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by providing evidence that the service tax amount was not passed on to customers. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157