Ganraj Travels vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PVR/265/NGP/2012 dated 31-12-2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

====================================================== Ganraj Travels Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Respondent

Appearance: Shri Ankit chande, C.A. for Appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Additional Commissioner (AR), for Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing : 04/09/2015 Date of Decision : 04/09/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PVR/265/NGP/2012 dated 31-12-2012.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim of the service tax paid by the appellant under the category of Tour Operator Services. Appellant had disputed the service tax liability under the Tour Operator Category subsequently they discharged the service tax liability calculating the tax liability from the amount shown as received towards the services rendered.

4. Learned Chartered Accountant would submits that the appellant had discharged the service tax liability calculated the amount of service tax liability and has paid the same from his pocket; category of tours that the reprospective amendment given to the exemption for tour operator is applicable and no tax liability needs to be discharged and Chartered Accountant certificate was produced indicating that the said amount was non recovered from their clients, despite such overwhelming evidences, both the lower authorities have held that there is tax liability has been collected.

5. Learned departmental representative would submit that the issue is now covered by the order of this bench in the case of Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. as reported at 2015-TIOL-1872-CESTAT-Mum.

6. I find that the appellants argument regarding non-consideration of various facts by both the lower authorities will not carry the case any further, as rightly pointed out by the learned departmental representative that in the case of Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this bench has held once service tax liability is worked back and discharged, it would be that amount of tax is being recovered by the appellant and principles of unjust enrichment gets attracted (I was one of the member of the said bench). According I hold that question of unjust enrichment is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant and it has to be held that they have passed on the incidence of tax liability. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case I find that the appeal is devoid of merits, accordingly it is rejected.

(Pronounced in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Akp

1 4 APPEAL No.ST/86493/13-Mum