https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4574 The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The sub-brokers claimed they unintentionally paid service tax twice, believing their commission was taxable, while the main Stock Broker had already paid the tax. The Member ruled in favor of the sub-brokers, absolving them from tax liability as the main Stock Broker had discharged the tax. However, the issue of unjust enrichment was remanded for further examination to determine if the tax liability was passed on to customers. The original authority was directed to resolve this within two months. en-us Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4574 The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The sub-brokers claimed they unintentionally paid service tax twice, believing their commission was taxable, while the main Stock Broker had already paid the tax. The Member ruled in favor of the sub-brokers, absolving them from tax liability as the main Stock Broker had discharged the tax. However, the issue of unjust enrichment was remanded for further examination to determine if the tax liability was passed on to customers. The original authority was directed to resolve this within two months. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4574