At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ASHOK JINDAL
For Respondents: Pardeep Juneja, AR
1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where the refund claim filed by the appellant has been dismissed as they failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. The facts of the case are that the appellant were provi
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ding 'Event Management' Service and registered with the Service Tax department. The appellant also entered into agreement with Madhya Pradesh Government for providing 'Mobile Health van' for Mobile Health Project to the Madhya Pradesh Government in various districts. As the said service relate to various medical advices, creating awareness of family planning and distribution of medicines, preventive cure, etc. through Mobile Health van service, etc., the agreement between the appellant and Madhya Pradesh Government there was fixed price and if any service tax is payable, that shall be borne by the appellant. On the premise that activity of providing mobile health van is covered under rent-a-cab service, the appellant paid Service Tax thereon but on receipt of letter from the Asstt. Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Bhopal that service provided by the appellant does not fall under taxable category, the appellant filed refund claim of Service Tax paid by them. The said refund claim was rejected as the appellant has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved from the order, appellant is before me.
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee-respondent nor any adjournment has been received. Considering the fact that the appeal pertains to the year 2011, same is taken up for consideration.
3. Learned AR submits that appellant has collected an amount of Service Tax from Madhya Pradesh Government. Therefore, bar of unjust enrichment is applicable.
4. Heard AR and perused the record.
5. On perusal of the record, I find that agreement between the appellant and the MP Government is for providing mobile medical, van and as per the agreement price was cum-service tax price. As no service tax is payable by the appellant, therefore, question of recovery of service tax from MP Government does not arise. In the circumstances, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for refund claim. With these observations, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief