Service tax refund claims remain subject to limitation and unjust enrichment safeguards under the statutory refund regime.

A claim for refund of service tax had to comply with the statutory refund regime, including limitation and proof that the incidence of tax had not been passed on. The Court applied the principle that a service recipient cannot bypass Section 11B by asserting it bore the tax or by relying on later credit notes, and that refund law treats the payer's claim separately from a buyer's claim. In the absence of valid provisional assessment, the refund remained subject to the statutory bar. The claim was therefore held barred by limitation and untenable on unjust enrichment grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's claim for refund of service tax was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether the refund was hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The claim was for refund of service tax allegedly paid in excess to the service provider, and the Court held that the refund application had to satisfy the statutory requirements governing refund claims, including the prescribed limitation and proof that the incidence of tax had not been passed on. The Court followed the earlier binding view that a buyer or service recipient cannot avoid Section 11B merely by asserting that the tax was borne by it or by relying on subsequent credit notes, and that the scheme of refund law keeps the manufacturer or payer's claim distinct from a buyer's claim. It further held that, absent a valid provisional assessment, the refund could not escape the statutory bar and the burden could not be shifted to the department.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be barred and untenable on unjust enrichment grounds, and the challenge was rejected in favour of the Revenue.

---