2018 (2) TMI 1888

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Agarwal, Consultant For The Respondent : Mr. G.R. Singh, D.R. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing services under the taxable category of goods transport agency and for that purpose, is regi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iming refund of service tax paid by it into the Government Exchequer. The refund application was rejected by the original authority vide order dated 09.08.2010 both on merits as well as on limitation. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.08.2011 has allowed the appeal on merits, but rejected the appeal on the ground of unjust enrichment, holding that the appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tries has not been mentioned. Since the name of the consignee i.e. Ispat Industries is not finding place in the challan of the appellant, it can be construed that such recipient of service has not availed any cenvat benefit in respect of the service tax paid by the appellant. Therefore, there is no question of passing of any service tax incidence to the service receiver and accordingly, the doctri....