2011 (6) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 27.11.2009 whereby Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the lower adjudicating authorities order and allowed the appeal of the respondent with consequential relief. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the providing Business Auxiliary Service and paying service tax thereon. The respondent claimed refund of service tax amounting to Rs.6,52,080/-paid by them f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted in case of goods exported. They have also placed reliance in the case of Sparkler Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-I reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 394 (Tri.-Mumbai) wherein it was held that question of unjust enrichment will not be applicable to the case which involved export of goods. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the Ld. C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e submissions and perused the records. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order on the premise, that the grounds of unjust enrichment and that the refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 is not allowable were, not part of the impugned show-cause notice. The instant appeal is filed by Revenue on the basis of aforesaid two gro....