https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411526 An excess service tax deposit kept by the Department for possible adjustment against anticipated future liability, and left unutilised when the service tax regime ended, was treated as money not yet crystallised into a completed tax liability. On that basis, section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and its limitation framework were held inapplicable, and the date of payment could not be used as the relevant date for limitation. The distinction between a mistaken excess tax payment and an unadjusted balance was treated as material, and unjust enrichment by the Department was rejected. The refund claim was therefore not barred by limitation and was held refundable. en-us Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Aug 2021 08:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411526 An excess service tax deposit kept by the Department for possible adjustment against anticipated future liability, and left unutilised when the service tax regime ended, was treated as money not yet crystallised into a completed tax liability. On that basis, section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and its limitation framework were held inapplicable, and the date of payment could not be used as the relevant date for limitation. The distinction between a mistaken excess tax payment and an unadjusted balance was treated as material, and unjust enrichment by the Department was rejected. The refund claim was therefore not barred by limitation and was held refundable. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411526