M/S.Bhawani Cargo vs Cce, Raipur
- CitationAppeal No.ST/460/2009-CU (DB)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellant's concession that it passed on the burden of the service tax to the service recipient, together with the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd., establishes that a claimant who has passed on the tax incidence is not entitled to a refund of that tax by reason of the unjust enrichment bar.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Date of Hearing/Order: 06.08.2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.6/ST/RPR-I/2009 dated 18.3.2009 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Raipur)
Honble Mr.R.K.Singh, Member (Technical)
Honble Ms.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? no 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? no 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? yes
M/s.Bhawani Cargo Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Raipur Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Sanjay Grover, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri B.B.Sharma, DR
Coram: Honble Mr.R.K.Singh, Member (Technical)
Honble Ms.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
FINAL ORDER NO.52636/2015
PER: R.K.SINGH
Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 18.3.2009 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 24.10.2008 in terms of which the appellants refund claim of Rs.14,59,551/- was rejected.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of goods transport agency and paid service tax under GTA service. Later on realising that service tax under GTA service was to be paid by the service recipient who paid freight, it filed the refund claim which was rejected.
3. During the hearing, learned Advocate fairly conceded that the appellant had passed on the burden of service tax (of which it sought refund) to the service recipient and therefore in view of unjust enrichment clause and law declared in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. by the Supreme Court, the appellant is not entitled to refund.
5. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court)
(SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) (R.K.SINGH)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
mk
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free