https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78099 CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed unjust enrichment in a refund claim. The appellant sought a refund of Rs. 1,23,70,024 u/s the Tribunal's order. The appellant failed to prove it wouldn't unjustly enrich itself if refunded. The Credit Note indicated the amount was to be paid to specific entities upon refund. No evidence showed these entities didn't collect service tax from flat allottees. The Assistant Commissioner rightly decided the refund should go to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Tribunal's final order required proof of no unjust enrichment for refund eligibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal. The appellant couldn't contest the unjust enrichment principle after the Tribunal's final order. en-us Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:03:30 +0530 Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:03:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78099 CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed unjust enrichment in a refund claim. The appellant sought a refund of Rs. 1,23,70,024 u/s the Tribunal's order. The appellant failed to prove it wouldn't unjustly enrich itself if refunded. The Credit Note indicated the amount was to be paid to specific entities upon refund. No evidence showed these entities didn't collect service tax from flat allottees. The Assistant Commissioner rightly decided the refund should go to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Tribunal's final order required proof of no unjust enrichment for refund eligibility. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal. The appellant couldn't contest the unjust enrichment principle after the Tribunal's final order. Highlights Service Tax Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:03:30 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78099