TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x wrongly paid by them due to lack of knowledge of Service Tax Provision that the Service Tax was not payable on agricultural produces and related expenses. The appellant was involved in procuring tendu leaves for manufacture of 'bidis' thereof. The said refund claim was rejected by adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original bearing No.54 dated 13th July, 2016. In an appeal, as was preferred against the said order, Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order- in- Appeal No.58 dated 26th April, 2018 has upheld the findings of original adjudicating authority, except modifying the same with the finding that the refund claimed on GTA for transportation of tendu leaves was admissible, however, is hit by bar of unjust enrichment. Being aggrieved, the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale of Bidies thereof. It is submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while ignoring relevant document as that of CA certificate. The findings thereof are accordingly prayed to be set aside. Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Ld. DR while rebutting these arguments has submitted that the burden was still of the appellant to prove that the refund, as claimed, had not been passed on by him to any other person. No evidence to discharge the said onus was ever produced. Due to which the first ground of proposing rejection was confirmed. Similarly, the second ground thereof has also been confirmed for the lack of evidence. Para 7 of the order is impressed upon, while justifying the same. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, the liability has been discharged by the recipient, the question of recovering the same from the service provider does not at all arise. It is obvious in the given circumstances that the incidence has been born by the appellant who otherwise is the service recipient. Resultantly, as far as the observation of the adjudicating authority with respect to unjust enrichment is concerned, I am convinced with the case law as relied upon by the appellant and hold that the said ground is not sustainable for rejecting the refund of the appellant. 7. Now coming to the second ground i.e. no proof has been tendered by the appellant to show that the impugned services were with respect to agricultural produce; 8. Since the appellant has filed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also an admitted fact that the appellant is not only involved for incurring services in relation to agricultural produce (tendu leaves only) but was incurring the similar services for the manufacture of Bidies thereof and the sale thereof. Resultantly, it was again the appellants own burden to prove that the services for which the refund has been claimed were incurred by him solely for his activity related to the procurement of agricultural produce (tendu leaves) but there is apparently no such evidence on record, except the CA certificate. Though the contention of appellant is that Commissioner (Appeals) has ignored the CA Certificate but the perusal of impugned order falsifies the said line of arguments. In addition, the perusal of certif....