https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401351 A refund of service tax paid on works contract service was examined against the bar of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal applied the principle reflected in Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and noted that, where the tax burden has been borne by the service recipient and the recipient is identifiable, the refund should not be retained in the Consumer Welfare Fund. It must instead be sanctioned for direct payment to that recipient. The article further notes that the refund was treated as admissible, with consequential relief including interest after three months from the refund application. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401351 A refund of service tax paid on works contract service was examined against the bar of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal applied the principle reflected in Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and noted that, where the tax burden has been borne by the service recipient and the recipient is identifiable, the refund should not be retained in the Consumer Welfare Fund. It must instead be sanctioned for direct payment to that recipient. The article further notes that the refund was treated as admissible, with consequential relief including interest after three months from the refund application. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401351