2008 (3) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 dated 28-6-2006, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dharwad Division rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 32,376/-. The appellants had filed refund claim on the ground that they have paid service tax twice for the period from 10-9-2004 to 31-3-2005. It was pleaded that the main Stock Broker has already paid the service tax and the assessee being a sub-broker had inadvertently p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Counsel submits that the service tax discharged by the appellants as sub-broker has not been passed on the customers. Therefore he submits that there is no question of unjust enrichment in the matter. He prays for allowing the appeal. 2. The learned DR opposes the prayer on the ground that the aspect of unjust enrichment has not been examined by both the authorities. She also submits that the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mediates Ltd., Mumbai had discharged the service tax and they have produced the details of payment. Therefore the question as to whether the assessee is required to again discharge the service tax does not arise. In terms of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Sharma & Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2007 (7) S.T.R. 518 (Tri. - Del.)) the sub-broker is not liab....