COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. ARASAN SYNTEX LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue (appellant) is represented by the DR. There is no representation for the respondents despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. After examining the records, I am of the view that this appeal should be disposed of at this stage.

(2.) The respondents had availed the service of consignment agents during the period July, '97 to July, 99 and had paid service tax (Rs. 3,17,526/ -) thereon. Later on, on the strength of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India [1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.)], they filed a refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise sanctioned the claim but ordered crediting of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. His Order dated 1 -12 -1999 was taken in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority examined the invoices, challans etc., produced by the assessee and took the view that their burden of service tax had not been passed on to any other person. Accordingly,, Id. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed cash refund of the above amount. Hence this appeal of the Revenue.

(3.) Ld. DR reiterates the grounds of this appeal and submits that the assessee was liable to pay service tax on the service received by them during the period of dispute, under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Service Tax Rules, 1995 framed thereunder read with Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 and, therefore, they were not entitled to refund of such tax. In this connection. Id. DR relies on the following decisions of the Tribunal: (i) M.R.F. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2001 (129) E.L.T. 757] (ii) Sriram Cement Works v. CCE, Jaipur [2001 (131) E.L.T. 297] (iii) Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2001 (132) E.L.T. 185] (iv) Mangalam Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2003 (151) E.L.T. 329]