Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Palus Engineering Industries

Commissioner of Customs vs Palus Engineering Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 08, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/44543

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

Palus Engineering Industries

Legal References

Reported In
(2007)(116)ECC541

Excerpt

1. heard both sides. the revenue is in appeal. none appeared for the respondents. the assessee engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods and utilized the services of goods transport operators and have paid service tax of rs. 29,441/- for the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98.thereafter having filed refund claim on the ground that they are ssi unit and as per notification no. 43/97-ce dated 5.11.97, they are not required to pay service tax. the adjudicating authority sanctioned their refund claim but credited the amount to the consumer welfare fund under section 12c of central excise act, 1944. therefore, the assessee preferred an appeal before the commissioner (appeals), central excise, pune, who in turn has allowed the refund claim in cash. therefore, the revenue is aggrieved and filed the present appeal.2. the commissioner (appeals) while applying the ration laid down in the case of punjab beverages (p) ltd. v. cce held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the present case since they did not issue any debit note to recover the service tax from his customers and so also the invoices. however, the assessee shown the amount as expenditure in the p&l a/c for the year ending 31.3.03. the ld. dr contends that the assesse has not issued any invoices to show the amount in the p&l a/c and this would go as cost of goods and from next year onwards the assessee would collect indirectly the service tax paid by him, as such, unjust enrichment is very much applicable.3. having considered the contentions of both sides, it is felt necessary to verify whether the amount paid by the assessee and shown as an expenditure for the year ending 31.3.03, has gone into cost of production during the next year. therefore, the commissioner (appeals) shall examine this aspect and decide the case afresh. accordingly the matter is remanded back to him. the present appeal is allowed in the above terms.

Full Judgment

1. Heard both sides. The revenue is in appeal. None appeared for the respondents. The assessee engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods and utilized the services of goods transport operators and have paid service tax of Rs. 29,441/- for the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98.

Thereafter having filed refund claim on the ground that they are SSI unit and as per notification No. 43/97-CE dated 5.11.97, they are not required to pay service tax. The adjudicating authority sanctioned their refund claim but credited the amount to the consumer welfare fund under Section 12C of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune, who in turn has allowed the refund claim in cash. Therefore, the revenue is aggrieved and filed the present appeal.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) while applying the ration laid down in the case of Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. v. CCE held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the present case since they did not issue any debit note to recover the service tax from his customers and so also the invoices. However, the assessee shown the amount as expenditure in the P&L A/c for the year ending 31.3.03. The ld. DR contends that the assesse has not issued any invoices to show the amount in the P&L A/c and this would go as cost of goods and from next year onwards the assessee would collect indirectly the service tax paid by him, as such, unjust enrichment is very much applicable.

3. Having considered the contentions of both sides, it is felt necessary to verify whether the amount paid by the assessee and shown as an expenditure for the year ending 31.3.03, has gone into cost of production during the next year. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall examine this aspect and decide the case afresh. Accordingly the matter is remanded back to him. The present appeal is allowed in the above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial