2017 (7) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent being a service tax assessee under 'Intellectual Property Service' have paid the service tax amounting to Rs. 15,16,992/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Two only) for the period from 10.09.2004 to 31.12.2004 in terms of the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 in respect of 'royalty' charges for usage of 'Trade Mark' paid to the service provider who is situated at United Kingdom and not having any office in India and thereafter claimed refund of the same on the ground that the clause of 'paying the service tax by the recipient of the service, when the service provided by a person who is non-resident of or is from outside India does not have any office in In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the records. 3. Learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the order passed by the adjudicating authority sanctioning the refund and crediting the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund is in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C)]. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order and made various submissions. The first submission of the counsel for the respondent is that the lower authority has erred in passing an order crediting the refund due to the assessee to the Consumer Welfare Fund in defiance of the Final Order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use notice, the Revenue cannot argue the case not made out in the show-cause notice, He further submitted that as per the Board's Circular No.19/93 dated 29.12.1993 and also Circular No.20/92 Cus. dated 29.10.1992, the issue of unjust enrichment ought to be raised in the show-cause notice itself and when the fact that the issue of unjust enrichment was not raised by the Department even when the impugned refund proceedings were pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) despite there being powers of review of the order passed by the lower authority in terms of Section 84 of the Finance Act 1994 or before the Tribunal during the appeal proceedings in the first round of litigation when the refund claim was rejected, in terms of Section 86 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is entitled to refund after three months from the date of submission of the refund claim dated 26.09.2005 which was submitted on 27.09.2005 and in support of this he relied upon the following decisions: a) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd V. Union of India 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) b) Union of India V. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories 2016 (333) ELT 193 (SC) 4.3. He further submitted that the lower authority while crediting the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund has violated all canons of judicial discipline. He submitted that the principles of judicial discipline requires that the orders of the higher appellate authority should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities and in support of this he relied upon the decision in the case of UOI....