https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269805 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. en-us Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 May 2016 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269805 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 24 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269805