Service tax refund limits and unjust enrichment apply strictly to freight-based claims, with inward freight exemption denied.

Service tax refund claims are subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applied through Section 83 of the Finance Act, with the relevant date treated as the date of payment; claims filed beyond that period are time-barred to that extent. Refund of service tax on inward freight was held outside the scope of Notification No. 25/2012-ST as amended, since the exemption was treated as covering outward freight and exemption notifications must be construed strictly; the claimed refund was therefore not admissible. Where freight and transportation charges were built into cost and the tax burden was passed on to buyers, unjust enrichment applied and the sanctioned refund was correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the service tax refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to service tax; (ii) whether refund of service tax paid on inward freight was admissible under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. 3/2013-ST dated 01.03.2013; (iii) whether the sanctioned refund was hit by unjust enrichment and therefore liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Issue (i): Whether the service tax refund claims were barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to service tax.

Analysis: Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 makes Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applicable to service tax refunds. The refund application had to be filed within one year from the relevant date, which in such cases is the date of payment. The claims were found to have been filed beyond the prescribed period in respect of the time-barred portion, and the authorities were held to be bound by the statutory limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claims, to the extent found time-barred, were rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of service tax paid on inward freight was admissible under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 as amended by Notification No. 3/2013-ST dated 01.03.2013.

Analysis: The exemption notification covered goods transport agency services in relation to transport of chemical fertilizer, but the reasoning accepted that this benefit applied to outward freight and not inward freight. Applying strict interpretation to exemption notifications, the inward freight portion was held outside the scope of the exemption and therefore not refundable.

Conclusion: Refund on inward freight was not admissible.

Issue (iii): Whether the sanctioned refund was hit by unjust enrichment and therefore liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The authorities recorded findings that the freight and transportation charges were built into the cost and the incidence of tax had been passed on to the buyers. Once the burden of duty is passed on, refund cannot go to the claimant and has to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Conclusion: The refund was rightly directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on limitation, admissibility of the claimed exemption, and unjust enrichment, and the impugned orders were sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of service tax is governed by the statutory limitation and unjust enrichment provisions applicable to excise refund, and exemption notifications in tax law must be construed strictly.

---