2013 (6) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... matter for examining the unjust enrichment angle. Revenue had appealed against the said order of Commissioner (Appeals), which has held in favour of the assessee on merits. 2. In de novo proceedings Assistant Commissioner rejected the appellants claim of non-applicability of unjust enrichment. They again filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and vide his order in appeal No. 231/CE/DLH/2009 dated 9.11.09, he examined the aspect of unjust enrichment in detail and held that there was no unjust enrichment. The said order was also appealed against by the Revenue and the appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 181/2010. 3. He submits that the Tribunal while disposing of both the appeals remanded the matter to the original adjudicating autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und of appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order impugned in Appeal No. 181/2010 very clearly observed that the short issue to be decided in the present appeal as - "the limited issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the service tax incidence in the instant case has been passed on by the appellant to the ONGC or not". Thereafter he has gone to take into consideration various evidences and examined the same in detail in para 5 and 6 of his order. Based upon such appreciation of evidence, he in para 7, allowed the appeal. 7. Admittedly, the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) stand challenged by the Revenue. However, on going through the grounds of....