2026-VIL-1660-CESTAT-CHE-ST
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1660-CESTAT-CHE-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax - Refund of duplicate payment of service tax - Assessee inadvertently paid the same financial year's service tax liability a second time during departmental audit - On discovery, assessee filed a refund claim which was rejected by the first adjudicating authority, allowed by the appellate authority in one round, and rejected again in a subsequent round, giving rise to cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue - Revenue contended that the assessee had not disclosed the original payment in the return and had not established that the two payments related to the same liability, relying on accounting discrepancies and the requirement of unjust enrichment - Whether the assessee is entitled to refund of the amount paid a second time for a liability already discharged earlier - HELD - The factual foundation is not in serious controversy, both authorities below having themselves referred to the payment as a duplicate/second payment, and Revenue has not shown the earlier payment was adjusted towards any other liability or that any fresh liability arose for the second payment - The CENVAT reconciliation shows the duplicate portion was not taken as credit, and the omission in the return does not extinguish the legal effect of an actual payment made into the Government account, nor can a wrong accounting head justify denial of refund once the liability has been discharged - On unjust enrichment, the documentary evidence shows the duplicate amount was continuously reflected as recoverable and not written off or passed on, and Revenue has not shown otherwise - Procedural omissions in reporting cannot convert a duplicate payment into tax legally due, and retention of such amount by the Department would amount to retention of tax not legally due - The assessee is entitled to refund of the duplicate payment under Section 11B, and Revenue's appeal challenging the order allowing such refund has no merit and is dismissed - Entitlement to consequential interest on refund of duplicate payment - Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Once refund of the duplicate payment is held admissible, whether the assessee is entitled to consequential interest thereon - HELD - Following settled law that statutory interest follows where refund is not sanctioned within the prescribed period, the claim for interest is allowed under Section 11BB read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - The appellant is entitled to refund along with consequential interest under Section 11BB in accordance with law
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?