2025 (12) TMI 7 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of excess service tax not covered by Sections 11B, 11BB; 12% interest ordered on amounts paid

CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant had either paid excess service tax or amounts during investigation which never legally became service tax ... Refund of excess service tax paid - entitlement for interest @ 12% per annum u/s 11B of C.E. Act - applicability of provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that in these cases the either appellant paid excess tax or tax paid during the course of investigation which could not form the shape of Service Tax. In that circumstances, relying on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Meenu Builders Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur [2025 (5) TMI 574 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein this Tribunal observed that 'the appellants are entitled for refund claim of the amount paid by the appellants and service recipient along with interest @12%.' As admittedly the tax deposited by the appellant could not form the part of Service Tax. In that circumstances, the provision of Section 11B of the Act are not applicable to the facts of these case as held by this Tribunal in the case of Meenu Builders. Consequently, provision of Section 11BB of the Act are not applicable. The appellant is entitled to claim interest @12% per annum - appeal disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether amounts paid as excess service tax or during investigation, which are subsequently held as not payable, constitute 'service tax' attracting Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 1.2 If Section 11B is inapplicable, whether interest on refund of such amounts is governed by Section 11BB and the related notification fixing interest at 6% per annum, or whether interest at 12% per annum is payable. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Applicability of Section 11B to amounts paid by mistake / during investigation Interpretation and reasoning 2.1 The Court noted as an admitted fact that, in both appeals, the assessee either paid excess service tax or made payments during the course of investigation which 'could not form the shape of Service Tax' and were ultimately found not payable. 2.2 The Court relied on prior Tribunal decisions, particularly in Meenu Builders, which in turn relied upon decisions including KVR Construction and Tripura Cricket Association, as upheld by the Supreme Court, to hold that where tax is paid under a mistake of law and is not legally payable at all, such payment is to be treated as 'revenue deposit' and not as duty/service tax. 2.3 Those decisions emphasized that Section 11B applies only to refund of 'duty of excise' (or corresponding service tax legally leviable and collected) and not to amounts paid without authority of law or under mistaken notion when the department had no authority to demand or retain such amounts. 2.4 On this reasoning, the Court held that the payments in question did not partake the character of 'service tax payable' in law and fell outside the purview of Section 11B. Conclusions 2.5 Amounts paid by the appellant as excess tax or during investigation, which were later found not legally payable, are to be treated as revenue deposits and not as service tax, and therefore the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are inapplicable. Issue 2 - Entitlement and rate of interest on refunds when Section 11B/11BB are inapplicable Legal framework (as discussed) 2.6 The Revenue contended that interest at 6% had rightly been paid under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant claimed entitlement to interest at 12% per annum on the footing that Section 11B (and consequently Section 11BB and Notification No. 67/2003-CE (NT)) did not apply. Interpretation and reasoning 2.7 Following Meenu Builders and other Tribunal decisions (including Gajendra Singh Sankhla and Indus Towers Limited) which dealt with similar situations of tax paid by mistake of law, the Court noted that once Section 11B is held inapplicable, the machinery of Section 11BB for determining interest rate and the linked notification prescribing 6% interest are also inapplicable. 2.8 In Meenu Builders and related decisions, after holding that such payments were revenue deposits and not tax, the Tribunal had granted interest at 12% per annum on delayed refunds, treating Section 11B/11BB as inapplicable and applying a higher compensatory rate. 2.9 The Court expressly held that the same reasoning and result applied to the present appeals because, as already found, the amounts refunded could not form part of service tax and were outside the scope of Section 11B and 11BB. Conclusions 2.10 As the amounts refunded are not covered by Section 11B, the interest provision under Section 11BB and Notification No. 67/2003-CE (NT) do not govern the case, and interest is not restricted to 6% per annum. 2.11 The appellant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the delayed refund of the amounts paid in excess or during investigation, which were subsequently held not payable as service tax. 2.12 The appeals are allowed by directing payment of interest at 12% per annum on the refunded amounts, in modification of the impugned orders that had granted interest only at 6% per annum.