2013 (4) TMI 612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irected against order-in-appeal No.278/2011(STC)/K.ANPAZHAKAN/Commr.(A)/Ahd, dt.21.10.11. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in providing service under the category of "Erection, Commission and Installation as defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and hold valid Service Tax Registrations No. ABKPA6570CST001....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ong with interest of Rs.11,579/-. The appellants further submitted that they had realized that there was a mistake on the part of audit party in reconciliation of ST-3 returns with the ledger of "Other income" for the period of F.Y.2006-07 and 2007-08. The appellant has submitted that the Audit has wrongly reconciled the service tax returns covering the period of October 2006 to March 2007 and Apr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r welfare fund. 4. Ld. counsel arguing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the appellant has paid this service tax liability on being pointed out by the audit party, but on subsequent reconciliation has found that this amount which has been paid by them is no liability arises. It is his submission that this fact has been accepted by the first appellate authority but the rejection of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n- granting of the refund claim in cash to the appellant only on the ground of not passing the hurdle of unjust enrichment. 7. It is undisputed that the first appellate authority has come to the conclusion that the appellant is eligible for the refund of the amount paid by him during the observation by the audit party. I find that as regards the unjust enrichment, the contentions of the ld. cou....