Refund of wrongly paid service tax allowed where non-taxable transfer, centralized registration, and no unjust enrichment were established.

Refund of service tax paid on a non-taxable business transfer was admissible because the levy itself was erroneous and the Department could not retain the amount. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as prescribing only limitation and unjust enrichment requirements, not a jurisdictional bar to filing the claim. The invoice showing the Delhi office address did not defeat refund eligibility, since the Delhi office formed part of the same legal entity and the respondent had centralized registration. The record further showed that the tax burden was borne by the respondent, the amount was accounted for as receivable, and there was no risk of double recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on a non-taxable business transfer could be denied merely because the invoice bore the address of the assessee's Delhi office and the refund claim was filed at Pune, when the tax had been borne by the respondent and the payment was reflected in its books.

Analysis: The activity was accepted to be outside the taxable service category, so the amount paid as service tax was an erroneous payment and could not be retained by the Department. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not impose a jurisdictional bar on filing a refund claim, and the only relevant statutory requirements are limitation and unjust enrichment. The invoice address of the Delhi office did not defeat the claim because the Delhi office was part of the same legal entity and the respondent had centralized registration. The record also showed that the tax burden was borne by the respondent, the amount was accounted for as receivable, and there was no risk of double claim.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected on jurisdictional grounds or for the invoice being raised in the name of the Delhi office, and the refund was admissible in favour of the respondent.

---