https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776813 CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal and directed refund of amounts paid, holding the contested activity for 2006-07 to 2009-10 was correctly classified as Renting of Immovable Property (per HC ruling) and not Airport Service. The Revenue accepted that position. The refund claim was filed within the statutory period, and the airport operator confirmed service tax collected was paid to the department, showing the appellant did not pass on the burden. Both conditions under Section 11B were satisfied, so rejection of the refund based on classification was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2025 13:00:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776813 CESTAT allowed the appellant's appeal and directed refund of amounts paid, holding the contested activity for 2006-07 to 2009-10 was correctly classified as Renting of Immovable Property (per HC ruling) and not Airport Service. The Revenue accepted that position. The refund claim was filed within the statutory period, and the airport operator confirmed service tax collected was paid to the department, showing the appellant did not pass on the burden. Both conditions under Section 11B were satisfied, so rejection of the refund based on classification was unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776813