https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365339 The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Services, focusing on the concept of unjust enrichment and the interpretation of 'buyer' in section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially rejected the refund claim citing unjust enrichment, but upon appeal, the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence, particularly a certificate showing that the tax was not collected from the customers. Both appeals were allowed for reconsideration of the unjust enrichment issue based on the new evidence presented by the appellant. en-us Tue, 10 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:20:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365339 The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Services, focusing on the concept of unjust enrichment and the interpretation of 'buyer' in section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially rejected the refund claim citing unjust enrichment, but upon appeal, the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence, particularly a certificate showing that the tax was not collected from the customers. Both appeals were allowed for reconsideration of the unjust enrichment issue based on the new evidence presented by the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 10 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365339