Held - I find that admittedly, appellant have not charged service tax under dispute in their invoices. Further, admittedly these amounts were paid under protest at the investigation stage and thereafter, the show cause notice was issued. In these circumstances, I hold that only by way of bit in profit and loss account, it does not amount to passing of the burden to a third person or the customer indirectly. An assesse is always at liberty to r.....

Held - It also needs to be noted that the refund claim has been rejected on the ground that in 2006-07, the amount deposited was accounted as „expense‟ in the Profit and Loss account of the appellant, meaning thereby that the burden of duty had passed.

The method of accounting followed by an assessee does not impact the admissibility of refund, and cannot be made a basis to hold that the incidence of duty had passed. In this regard, .....

Held - In the facts and circumstance, it is the appellant who has borne the burden of tax. It does not make any difference whether the amount is debited in the profit and loss account or it is shown as amount receiveable on the asset side in the balance sheet, in either case the burden falls on the appellant-assessee only. 

In view of my finding and observations, I hold that the appellant has passed the test of unjust enrichment. Ac.....