TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the present case are that the appellants filed refund claim of Rs. 45,71,696/- on 18.05.2017 for the period April, 2013 to June, 2014. The refund claim was filed on the ground that they received Manpower Supply Service from various service providers where the service provider charged service tax from them and which they paid to the service providers. However, in terms of Sr. No. 9 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST (Sr. No. 9), being an educational institution, the services received by them did not attract levy of service tax. The appellants were issued Show Cause Notice No. 01/AC/ST/SIRSA/2017-18 dated 25.09.2017 proposing rejection of refund claim. After following the due process, the original authority rejected the refund cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the original authority, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order rejected the appeal of the appellant on the following grounds: i) The University has not filed this claim within a period of one year from the date of deposit of service tax, as per section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. ii) The applicant is service receiver not the service provider hence not the right person to claim the refund. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has right to claim the refund which was denied by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. On the other hand, learned authorized representative for the department reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submits that the learned Commissioner has rightly held that provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the time period prescribed thereunder, is applicable in the present case. She further submits that this issue has been considered by the various Benches of the Tribunal and recently the CESTAT Chennai in the case of M/s Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai North reported in 2025-TIOL-1673CESTAT-MAD, has considered the identical issue in detailed and after analyz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has not been taken note of by the learned single Judge. The court noted that taxes are intended for immediate expenditure for the common good, and it would be unjust to require repayment after such funds have been expended. It was thus emphasized by the jurisdictional High Court that amounts paid as service tax, even if later found to be not payable, remain subject to Section 11B's time limit for purposes of refund. Further the Constitutional Courts judgment in Mafatfal Industries (supra), itself lays down the law in this matter that all refunds of Central Excise duty, (as made applicable to the Finance Act 1994, in this case), except that of an unconstitutional levy has to be dealt with under the provisions of section 118 onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax which has been deposited by the service provider in the Government Treasury. She further submits that it is the service provider who has actually deposited the service tax in the Government Exchequer can only file a claim for refund and not the appellant who has not directly deposited the service tax in the Government Treasury. Though, the learned consultant appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has not got the service tax registration and they have not passed on the service tax paid to the security agency for providing security service and they have themselves bore incidence of service tax and therefore, they are entitled to claim the refund of the same. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the....