TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods Transport Agencies (GTA) for transporting the goods and discharged the Service tax in terms of the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. On scrutiny of the records, it was found that they had paid Service tax in excess without claiming any abatement as per Notification No. 1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006. While noticing such error, they filed a claim for refund of excess service tax paid on GTA service (without claiming the abatement). The department issued a Show Cause Notice rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not furnished the following details:- (a) The refund claim is not filed in triplicate. (1,) The relevant TR6 Challans and ST# Returns in original are not furnished. (c) Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d exemption under Income Tax to that effect, which clearly indicate that the Service tax element is blended in the value of their transactions and business, thereby it is evident that they have passed on the incidence of tax on to innumerous buyers. Hence, if the refund of Rs. 4,00,780/- is sanctioned it would become a case of unjust enrichment to the appellant. This portion of the claim is only cold be seen on verification of the relevant documents available. Therefore the original authority has rejected the remaining amount of Rs. 4,00,754/-. In view of the foregoing, opine that the order-in-original is legal and in order..." 4. The learned Counsel submits that the issue involved is only in respect of refund. It is the submission that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oth sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, I find that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the entire case is made up for rejection of refund claim on the ground the appellant has not passed the test 'unjust enrichment'. find that the benefit of abatement is available to them as per Notification No. 1/2006, dated 1-3-2006, is accepted by the adjudicating authority, though he has not recorded any finding in the order. I also find that the declaration filed by the appellant was accepted by the adjudicating authority. 7. As regards the 'unjust enrichment', the Chartered Accountant had given a certificate which reads as under :- "We have verified the books of accounts M General Commodities Private Ltd., havin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench in the case of RCC (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad -IV [2007 (8) S.T.R. 55 (Tribunal) = 2008 (223) E.L.T. 53 (Tri. - Bang.)] and the said order is reproduced as under: "These appeals arise from Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 232/2004-C.E., dated 31-12-2004 and 203/2004-C.E., dated 16-12-2004 by which the refund was granted. However, on unjust enrichment, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the money to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellants had contested the Revenue's plea pertaining to the refund not having been passed on to the customers. They had submitted that they had borne the duty themselves and in support of their claim, they had produced a Chartered Accountant's Certificate to the effect that excess duty amo....