TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horized dealer of Eicher Commercial vehicles in the state of Kerala and is registered under Service Tax Registration under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. The appellant filed refund claim dated 20.07.2009 seeking refund of Rs. 8,77,391/- for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 being the amount of service tax wrongly paid under Business Auxiliary Service in respect of the reimbursements from the principal manufacturers towards the service. Thereafter, a SCN dated 13.11.2009 was issued proposing to deny the refund claim. After following the due process, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim vide his order dated 19.04.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e incidence of tax has not been passed on to third person. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant was under a bona fide belief that it was not liable to pay service tax on the amount received from their principals and hence had not issued any invoice and consequently had not passed the benefit to any third person. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the appellant had not furnished any other evidence other than the Chartered Accountant certificate in support of its claim that there was no unjust enrichment. He further submitted that the Chartered Accountant certificate is one of the admissible evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he findings of the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has not been able to establish that the service tax paid has not been passed on to the buyer. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that this is the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the Tribunal vide its F.O. No.20070/2017 dated 17.01.2017 remanded the matter to the original authority to examine the challans furnished by the appellant and also verify the certificate of Chartered Accountant with regard to unjust enrichment but in denovo proceedings, the original authority has gone beyond the directions of the Tribunal and also rejected the refund on merits though the Commissioner (A....