COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Vs. ARVIND AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVENUE is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 40 lakhs with interest to the respondent. Brief facts of the case are that an investigation was carried out in the respondent's firm to examine the activities undertaken by them. During the course of investigation, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs towards the activity undertaken by them under the category of Management Consultancy Service for the period from October, 2010 to March, 2011. Later -on the respondent sought change of the category of service from 'Management Consultancy Services' to "Legal Consultancy Services" as the activity undertaken by them does not fall under the category of "Management Consultancy Service" and the service provided has come into Service Tax net with effect from 1 -5 -2011. The respondent filed a refund claim of Rs. 40 lakhs which was paid during the course of investigation along with interest. The adjudicating authority rejected their refund claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the refund claim along with interest. Being aggrieved by the said order the Revenue is in appeal on the ground that the lower authority while sanctioning the refund claim has not examined the issue of unjust enrichment.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that as the respondent has paid the said amount on persuasion of the investigating team in his individual capacity as pre -deposit. Therefore, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the light of the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. CC (Chennai) - : 2005 (188) E.L.T. 315, CCE v. Ravishankar Industries - : 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1317 and Airtight Electronics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Faridabad - : 2004 (177) E.L.T. 971 (T).