TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has remanded the matter to the original authority to pass a fresh order after considering various observations made by him. Further the Commissioner(Appeals) has also directed the original authority while remanding the case for de novo consideration with the finding with regard to the applicability of the principles of unjust enrichment. Appellants have filed these appeals only against this particular finding of unjust enrichment held by the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned orders. The issue in all the 14 appeals is identical and therefore all the 14 appeals are being dispose of by this common order. It is also noted that appellant M/s. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is now known as M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, LLC. The appellant provides general back office and operational support to their group companies situated outside India. Additionally, the appellants have also obtained registration as a service provider under the categories of Management Consultancy Services, Business Support Services, IT Software Services and Consulting Engineer Services. The appellant is exporting taxable service under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' to group companies, without payment of service tax in terms of Rule 4 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The appellant claimed refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE dt. 14/03/2006. The original authority rejected the refund claim. Aggrieved by the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd was inserted for abundant caution. He also submitted that indirect tax is a tax where the incidence of tax is borne by the ultimate consumer. He also submitted that in the present case, it is a undisputed fact that the consumer of the service provided and exported by the appellant are group companies located outside India. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by this Tribunal in the following cases:- i. XL Health Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore Service Tax-I [2017-TIOL-2600-CESTAT-BANG] ii. Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, New Delhi [2011- TIOL-1902-CESTAT-DEL] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considerin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decide and quantify the refund claim. The original authority will decide the claim within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order". Further we find that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the case of export of services. This has been held by various decisions of the Tribunal cited below:- i. Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Delhi [2012(25) STR 251 (Tri. Del.)] ii. CST, Mumbai Vs. Vodafone (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2015(40) STR 699 (Tri. Mum.)] iii. CST, Mumbai Vs. Pulcra Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2015(39) STR 70 (Tri. Mum.)] iv. Sair Creation Vs. CCE [2013(294) ELT 637 (Tri. Mum.)] v. Balakrishna Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2009(239) ELT 279 (Tri.....