2026 (4) TMI 609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was upheld. The department is of the view that in this case, the demand is clearly time barred and therefore, the same has not been correctly given by the Original RSA. Insofar as merit of the refund is concerned, there is no dispute by either side to the fact that the respondent had paid 50% extra on the services provided to the service recipient, which as per the statutory provisions was required to be paid by the service provider. They have also agitated the issue of unjust enrichment, which was not considered by the Original RSA. The department has also agitated that in the facts of the case, demand is hit by time bar under section 11B of Central Excise Act, as made applicable to Service Tax vide section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CCE, Kolkata [2019 (9) TMI 802 (SC-LB)], refund claim is not maintainable. Further, he has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BT (India) Pvt Ltd Vs UOI [2023 (11) TMI 478 - Delhi HC], which was further affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in support of his contention that said decision of ITC Ltd (supra), is also applicable to service tax refund. 4. Per contra, learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that in this case, there is no dispute as far as payment of service tax under the category of WCS is concerned. As per the prevailing provisions, as a service provider, they were only required to pay 50% of service tax, whereas, they had paid 100% of service tax. Later on, the service recipient....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tax or otherwise. It is nobody's case that there was any requirement to pay service tax beyond 50% by the respondent. It is however the case where the refund of excess payment was to be regulated only in terms of section 11B, which prescribes for certain limitations within which claim has to be filed. In this case, admittedly, the claim has been filed much beyond that limitation. Therefore, relying on various judgments cited, supra, we find that the department has force in their submission that any refund claim, except for the unconstitutionally valid levy or payment, is required to be examined within the purview of section 11B, which provides, inter alia, for limitation as well as compliance with doctrine of unjust enrichment. We find tha....