Service tax refund limitation bars claim where delay is unexplained and excess tax return is not established.

Service tax refund claims are subject to the statutory refund framework under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, and a plea of payment under mistake does not by itself displace limitation. The claim was found to be delayed, with no satisfactory explanation for the time taken or proof of prompt pursuit of refund. The record also left inconsistencies unresolved on the leased area and did not show that the excess rent and corresponding tax had been returned to the service recipient. The refund was therefore not maintainable and was rejected as time-barred and unsupported on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of service tax was barred by limitation and liable to be rejected notwithstanding the plea that the tax had been paid under mistake.

Analysis: The claim was made in 2022 for service tax relating to the period 2013-14 to 2017-18, although the alleged excess payment was noticed in audit in 2019. The refund application was treated as one under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The record did not establish that the appellant had promptly sought refund within a reasonable time, nor did it satisfactorily explain the delay. The evidence also did not remove the inconsistencies regarding the leased area and did not show that the excess rent and corresponding tax had been returned to the service recipient. On these facts, the claim was held to be hit by delay, laches, and the statutory refund framework.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and was rightly rejected as time-barred and unsupported on merits.

---