https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770302 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, holding the appellant entitled to refund of the service tax paid under a mistake of law on an activity not liable to service tax. The Tribunal accepted work orders showing that the service recipient had deducted 50% of the service tax under reverse charge from the appellant's running bills, establishing that the tax had been borne. It held that the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to such mistaken payments. Following prior Tribunal precedent, it granted interest at 12% on the delayed refund and rejected Revenue's cross-objections. en-us Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Nov 2025 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770302 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, holding the appellant entitled to refund of the service tax paid under a mistake of law on an activity not liable to service tax. The Tribunal accepted work orders showing that the service recipient had deducted 50% of the service tax under reverse charge from the appellant's running bills, establishing that the tax had been borne. It held that the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to such mistaken payments. Following prior Tribunal precedent, it granted interest at 12% on the delayed refund and rejected Revenue's cross-objections. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770302