https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269577 The appellant paid service tax on Business Auxiliary Service imported from abroad by debiting the CENVAT account. The department objected, leading to a cash payment. The Assistant Commissioner allowed re-credit, but the Commissioner revised it citing unjust enrichment. However, as the appellant did not pass on the burden under the reverse charge mechanism, and following a precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The judgment favored the appellant based on the absence of unjust enrichment and the specific circumstances of the case. en-us Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Dec 2015 06:43:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269577 The appellant paid service tax on Business Auxiliary Service imported from abroad by debiting the CENVAT account. The department objected, leading to a cash payment. The Assistant Commissioner allowed re-credit, but the Commissioner revised it citing unjust enrichment. However, as the appellant did not pass on the burden under the reverse charge mechanism, and following a precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The judgment favored the appellant based on the absence of unjust enrichment and the specific circumstances of the case. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269577