https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314387 The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal for service tax refund. The appellant, a construction company, had paid service tax but later refunded amounts to buyers when no service was actually provided. The tribunal held that the refund claim was not time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, determining the relevant date as when amounts were refunded to service recipients, not the original payment date. The tribunal ruled that refund of duty paid through Cenvat credit was maintainable, citing Article 265 of the Constitution prohibiting retention of non-leviable amounts. Based on a chartered accountant's certificate confirming no burden was passed to others, the tribunal found no unjust enrichment and granted the full refund claim. en-us Thu, 01 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2024 20:08:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314387 The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal for service tax refund. The appellant, a construction company, had paid service tax but later refunded amounts to buyers when no service was actually provided. The tribunal held that the refund claim was not time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, determining the relevant date as when amounts were refunded to service recipients, not the original payment date. The tribunal ruled that refund of duty paid through Cenvat credit was maintainable, citing Article 265 of the Constitution prohibiting retention of non-leviable amounts. Based on a chartered accountant's certificate confirming no burden was passed to others, the tribunal found no unjust enrichment and granted the full refund claim. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 01 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314387