Appeal allowed, refund granted under Section 11C(2) for service tax on international roaming charges.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The court emphasized the applicability of Section 11C(2) to service tax matters, enabling refund claims within six months of notification issuance. The court found that the appellants were eligible for a refund under this provision, as they had paid service tax on international roaming charges covered by a notification exempting such tax. The court also determined that there was no unjust enrichment as the appellants had not collected service tax separately before a certain period. Consequential relief, if any, was granted to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No.36/2007-ST for service tax paid by telecom service provider on international inbound roaming charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Notification No.36/2007-ST and Refund Claim:
- The telecom service provider paid service tax under the category of telephone service to enable subscribers of a foreign telecom operator to avail international inbound roaming facility.
- Notification No.36/2007 was issued, exempting service tax on such international roaming charges not collected or levied.
- Refund claim filed by the appellants post the notification was rejected on the grounds of tax already paid and unjust enrichment.

2. Provisions of Section 11C (2) and Applicability to Service Tax:
- Lower authorities failed to consider Section 11C (2) which allows for refund when a notification exempts duty or tax.
- Section 11C (2) applies to service tax matters, enabling refund claims within six months of notification issuance.
- The provision of Section 11C (2) overrides the notification's language, making appellants eligible for a refund.

3. Unjust Enrichment:
- Appellants started charging service tax from June 2006 and paid collected amounts to the government without claiming refunds.
- The service tax liability was determined and paid by the appellants themselves, as confirmed by a Chartered Accountant's certificate.
- No unjust enrichment found due to the appellants not collecting service tax separately before June 2006.

4. Conclusion:
- The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, granted to the appellant.
- The judgment highlights the importance of Section 11C (2) in refund claims related to service tax matters, emphasizing the eligibility for refunds despite prior tax payments under specific notifications.

---