Appeal granted for full service tax refund due to timely filing and exclusion from installments.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the refund claim for the entire service tax amount paid by the appellants, amounting to Rs.5,64,818/-. The Tribunal found the refund claim timely filed within one year of the liability settlement and accepted the explanation that service tax was not included in the installment amounts, thus ruling that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply in this case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund claim denied on grounds of time bar and unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in financing services, paid service tax for the period 16.7.2001 to 31.3.2009 based on the Revenue's view. However, following a Supreme Court decision stating that their activities were not liable for service tax, they challenged the levy. The lower Appellate Authority ruled in their favor, directing consideration of their refund claim. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim as time-barred and due to unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

The appellants argued that their refund claim, filed within one year of the issue's settlement, was wrongly rejected. They emphasized precedents supporting their position. Additionally, they contended that they never collected service tax from clients, as the amounts paid were considered as cum-tax, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate.

The Revenue opposed the refund, citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, requiring claims within one year of tax payment. They argued that the appellants' acceptance of liability precluded a refund beyond the prescribed period. On unjust enrichment, they claimed the appellants paid service tax as cum-tax, thus benefiting from it. They relied on relevant case law to support their stance.

After considering both sides, the Tribunal found the refund claim for Rs.5,64,818/- timely, as it was filed within one year of the liability settlement. Regarding unjust enrichment, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation that service tax was not included in the installment amounts. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the refund claim for the entire service tax amount paid by the appellants.

---