2026-VIL-545-CESTAT-DEL-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Refund of service tax paid on cancelled services - The appellant, a real estate brokerage service provider, claimed a refund on the ground that some of their services rendered to customers were rejected and not provided either partly or wholly – Rejection of refund on the ground of limitation, being filed beyond one year from the date of payment of tax - Whether the refund claim is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD - The consistent view taken in various decisions is that refund claim of service tax paid under the existing law (Central Excise Act, 1944) in respect of services not provided shall be disposed of under the existing law and has to be paid in cash. However, such refund is subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 11B of CEA, which means that it is only in case of unjust enrichment that the refund amount can be denied. The refund application cannot be rejected on the ground of time bar under Section 11B - Once the booking has been cancelled and the amount has been refunded, there is no scope for rendering any service on which the Department can hold the amount towards service tax - the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is entitled to the refund subject to the satisfaction of the provisions of Section 11B(2) of CEA read with section 142(5) of CGST Act, 2017 - The Adjudicating Authority to decide on the applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment and granting an opportunity to the appellant to place on record the requisite documents in that regard – The appeal is allowed by way of remand

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page