https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2920 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of a refund claim for excess Service Tax paid by a venture capital fund's Asset Managing Company due to a supplementary agreement reducing the management fee. The appellant failed to prove non-passing of the tax benefit to the service recipient, leading to concerns of unjust enrichment. Emphasizing the need for timely and substantiated evidence, the Tribunal cited legal precedents including the Mafatlal Industries case and upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision, denying the appeal for refund and affirming the Order-in-Original. en-us Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2920 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of a refund claim for excess Service Tax paid by a venture capital fund's Asset Managing Company due to a supplementary agreement reducing the management fee. The appellant failed to prove non-passing of the tax benefit to the service recipient, leading to concerns of unjust enrichment. Emphasizing the need for timely and substantiated evidence, the Tribunal cited legal precedents including the Mafatlal Industries case and upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision, denying the appeal for refund and affirming the Order-in-Original. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2920