2024 (3) TMI 1042

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Central Excise Act, 1944 was upheld. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant were engaged in providing services under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services', 'Business Auxiliary Services' and 'Management, Maintenance & Repair Services' to PHED and others during the period 2004- 2005 to 2008-2009. 3. A show cause notice dated 14.10.2009 was issued to the appellant for recovery of service tax amounting to Rs.40,56,133/-, which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order-in-original dated 18.03.2011 beside interest and also imposed penalty. The appellant filed an appeal and in compliance to the Stay Order dated 28.12.2011 deposited an amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. The Commissioner (Appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person. Further, referring to the provisions of Section 12B of the Act, 1944, which provides that unless the contrary is proved by the assessee, it shall be deemed that the assessee has passed on the full incidence of service tax refund to the service receiver. In terms of the provisions, the applicant was required to submit the necessary documents and evidences in support of his claim that the principle of unjust enrichment would not apply as he has not passed on the incidence of duty to the service receiver. Both, the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority had specifically noted that either the appellant had not produced the documents or had only submitted the photocopies o....