2019 (4) TMI 1966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed period October 2002 to December 2004, the appellant had procured various input services from outside India for providing such services to its Indian clients. The appellant had paid service tax amounting to Rs. 1,20,37,462/- on importation of the services, under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Subsequent to payment of service tax, the appellant realized that service tax was not required to be paid on import of services prior to the period 18.04.2006. Accordingly, the appellant had filed the refund application, claiming refund of service tax paid by it as a recipient of taxable service from outside the country. The refund application filed by the appellant was rejected by the authorities below and finally, this Tribunal vide order dated 12.07.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the provisions of Section 87 (b) ibid. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the doctrine of unjust enrichment has been duly complied with inasmuch as the appellant had not charged the tax element in the profit and loss account as an expenditure and that no amount was payable by the appellant to various service providers and hence, the provisions of Section 87 ibid cannot be invoked against the appellant. 2.1 The learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the expenses incurred by the appellant in the construction activities undertaken by it along with service tax amount was debited to the work-in-process account, until the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paid by the appellant. Thus, he submitted that the provisions of Section 87 ibid cannot be applied to the present case. The learned Consultant also submitted that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to the interest amount paid by the appellant. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s United Spirits - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 513 (Bom.), to substantiate such stand. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. We find that the original authorities vide the adjudication order dated 21.01.2004 had allowed the refund claim in favour of the appellant, holding as under:- "9. On....