2026-VIL-917-CESTAT-CHD-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Refund of amounts deposited under protest during investigation proceedings when demand is subsequently dropped – Applicability of limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether a refund claim filed after the dropping of tax demand is barred by the one-year limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the amount was deposited during investigation without following the formal procedure of marking payments as "under protest" on challans – HELD - Any payment made under compulsion during investigation proceedings carries an inherent element of protest, irrespective of whether it is formally marked "under protest" on challans or whether the prescribed procedure of written intimation to the Superintendent is strictly followed. The letters addressed during the investigation period clearly recorded that the deposits made by the Respondent-assessee were made under protest, establishing the character of the payment as being made under protest - The refund claim is filed within the statutory period of one year from the date of receipt of the order dropping the demand, which is the relevant date for computing the limitation period since no final determination of non-liability existed prior to adjudication. The principle of unjust enrichment does not apply as the assessee has not recovered the deposited amount from clients or charged service tax in invoices during the relevant period, as evidenced by the certificate from the CA and affidavit from the Managing Director - The retention of amounts collected without authority of law violates Article 265 of the Constitution. The Order-in-Appeal is upheld and the Revenue appeal is dismissed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page