2015 (1) TMI 283

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resulting in restoration of already sanctioned refund in favour of the revenue. 2. The brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal are as follows :-               During the period 2003-04 to 2005-06, the appellant had provided Ladle Management Service to its customer M/s Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The Service Tax department entertained the belief that such service falls under the taxable category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. Since the appellant had not discharged service tax on the said service, show cause proceedings were initiated by the department, which culminated in the adjudication order dated 24.12.2008, wherein the service tax demand along with i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 27.10.2010, in restoring the sanctioned refund in favour of the revenue. The impugned order is the subject matter of this present appeal. 3. In the appeal memorandum, the appellant, inter alia stated that it had not collected any amount, representing service tax, for the reason that the activities undertaken at client's premises were not falling under the purview of 'Business Auxiliary Service'; that the adjudged service tax amount was paid during the pendency of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and upon disposal of appeal in its favor with consequential benefit, since the refund claim was lodged, the doctrine of unjust enrichment has no application. 4. The learned Chartered Accountant Shri Rajesh Kumar appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....id not pay the tax owing to the fact that the activities undertaken in its client's premises was not confirming to any of the defined taxable services. Further, the appellant had specifically pleaded before the Revisionary authority that no service tax has been collected from its clients. Non-passing of the tax incidence to its client is evident from the fact that the adjudged amount was paid by the appellant on 28.01.2009, pursuant to the adjudication order dated 24.12.2008, wherein it has been held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. Since, the refund claim was lodged pursuant to the favorable Appellate order dated 20.03.2009, which was sanctioned by the original ....