TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e common facts and issues, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant is a registered service provider engaged in storage, clearing and forwarding and cargo handling services and is also an importer of services, including management and trademark fees, on which service tax was discharged under reverse charge. In respect of services received from outside India against invoices dated May 2009, the appellant discharged service tax of Rs.55,91,185/- through Challan No.50297 dated 05.10.2009. The payment was inadvertently not reflected in the relevant ST-3 return and no CENVAT credit on this challan was taken until February 2011. During departmental audit for FY 200809 to 2010-11, non-payment of service tax on import of services was pointed out. While making payment relating to subsequent years, the appellant inadvertently paid the very same FY 2008-09 liability once again through Challan No.10014 dated 02.02.2011. The said challan comprised service tax of Rs.1,31,70,733/-, of which Rs.55,91,185/- represented the FY 2008-09 liability already paid in 2009, while Rs.75,79,548/- related to FY 2009-10. Interest of Rs.12,50,562/- relating to FY 2008-09 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore submitted that no CENVAT credit was ever availed on the duplicate payment. 3.4 It was also submitted that the disputed amount continued to be shown as recoverable from the Department in the books of account and was not adjusted against expenditure or passed on to any customer. The Statutory Auditor's certificate dated 31.01.2017 specifically recorded that the appellant had paid the service tax twice and had neither availed nor utilised the duplicate amount under Challan No.10014. The audited financial statements from FY 2011-12 to FY 2016-17 were relied upon to show that the amount continued to be reflected as a receivable from the Department. 3.5 On the issue of the ST-3 return and the alleged wrong accounting head/service category, the appellant relied upon CBEC Circular No.58/7/2003-ST dated 20.05.2003, as also M/s Aaryaa Construction Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 2025-VIL-1030-CESTAT-CHE-ST; M/s Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Raipur, 2017-VIL-391-CESTAT-DEL-ST; M/s Owens Corning (I) Ltd Vs Commissioner of S. Tax, Mumbai-II, 2019-VIL559-CESTAT-MUM-ST; Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & C, Goa, 2013-VIL-119....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 in respect of the FY 200809 liability already discharged on 05.10.2009, under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? ii. Whether the appellant is entitled to consequential interest on the admissible refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 6. We now proceed to examine the question framed for determination. Issue No. (i): Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of Rs.55,91,185/-, being the service tax paid for the second time on 02.02.2011 in respect of the FY 2008-09 liability already discharged on 05.10.2009, under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 7. We find that the factual foundation of the dispute is no longer in serious controversy. The first payment of Rs.55,91,185/- was made through Challan No.50297 dated 05.10.2009. The same amount was again included in Challan No.10014 dated 02.02.2011. The appellant's case is not that the second payment discharged another liability; it is that the very same FY 2008-09 liability was inadvertently paid again during the audit. Significantly, OIO-2 and OIA-2 themselves refer to the payment as the "duplicate payment" and the "second payment". The appellant's additional subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....again. The principle is also supported by M/s Aaryaa Construction Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 2025-VIL-1030-CESTAT-CHE-ST; M/s Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Raipur, 2017-VIL-391-CESTAT-DEL-ST; M/s Owens Corning (I) Ltd Vs Commissioner of S. Tax, Mumbai-II, 2019VIL-559-CESTAT-MUM-ST; Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & C, Goa, 2013-VIL-119-CESTAT-MUM-ST; and Devang Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI, 2015-VIL-600-GUJ- CE. 12. We next consider unjust enrichment. The appellant discharged the tax under reverse charge. The material placed on record shows that the duplicate amount was continuously reflected as recoverable from the Department and was not written off as expenditure or reduced through utilisation of credit. The Statutory Auditor's certificate dated 31.01.2017 and the audited financial statements for FY 2011-12 to FY 2016-17 support this position. 13. In CCT, Hyderabad GST Vs UPL Ltd., 2019-VIL582-CESTAT-HYD-ST, reliance was placed on the examination of books of account and the Chartered Accountant's certificate in determining unjust enrichment. The appellant has also relied upon ITC Ltd Vs C.GST&CE, Coimbatore....