M/S. Birla Power Solutions Ltd vs Cce, Meerut
- CitationService Tax Appeal No.ST/53720/2014 ST. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In a claim for refund of service tax, the burden lies on the claimant to prove, by documentary evidence, that the incidence of the tax has not been passed on to another person; where the claimant produces no such evidence, the refund claim is liable to be rejected on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.30-ST/MRT-I/2013 dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-I]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see 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
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in
any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
__________________________________________________
M/s. Birla Power Solutions Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Meerut Respondent
Present for the Appellant :None
Present for the Respondent: Shri Devender Singh, DR
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 04.06.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. _______________
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Despite issuance of repeated notices, none appeared for the appellant. Shri Devender Singh, the ld. JCDR appeared for the respondent. The issue involved in the present case is with regard to refund of service tax claimed by the appellant, which was dismissed by the authorities below on the ground of doctrine of unjust-enrichment. The reason for disallowance of the refund claim is that no documentary evidences were produced by the appellant to prove that the incidence of service tax has not been passed on to any other person and the same has been borne by the appellant.
2. I find that the onus lies with the appellant to prove that the incidence of service tax has not been passed on, not satisfied with any documentary evidences. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and as such, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 2
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