COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Vs. MAHAVIR COCONUT INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed by the Revenue impugning the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing refund of service tax paid by the respondents under the category of GTA as per the following particulars:

(2.) THE period of dispute is from 4 of 2005 to 12 of 2005. Each set of two appeals filed by the Revenue are against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing refund of amounts mentioned above at two stages. Initially, the Revenue filed the appeal when the Commissioner (Appeals) had vacated the order of the original authority denying the refund claim filed by the appellants. The second set of appeals were filed when the appellants' claims for refund were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of unjust enrichment and the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated those orders.

(3.) IN the first set of orders -in -appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claims in question vacating orders of rejection passed by the original authority. Pursuant to those orders -in -appeal, when the assessee claimed the amounts of refund, the original authority rejected the claims on the ground of unjust enrichment. Vide the two impugned orders -in -appeal, the Commissioner held that the first set of orders -in -appeal had become final in the absence of challenge by the Revenue. Accordingly, he vacated the orders of the original authority. The Revenue is before us challenging these orders dated January 30, 2008 of the Commissioner (Appeals).