2014 (8) TMI 265 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - tax collected and deposited with Department for construction work done - Charitable purpose - Bar of limitation - Held that - Appellant has placed on record a copy of letter dated 12.07.2010 (Page 25 of the appeal papers) of the Trust, addressed to the appellant, evidencing that an amount of ₹ 18 lakh ₹ 9,13,991/- (Total ₹ 27,13,991/-) of the appellant has been blocked by the Trust on account of non-payment of refund of service tax collected from the Trust without authority of law. This aspect has not been placed before the Adjudicating authority to examine the aspect of unjust enrichment. The case is, therefore, remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of the facts and to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the appellant to explain their position including the reliance place on the relied upon judgments on time bar issue - matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim on grounds of time bar and unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in civil construction, raised bills with service tax for work done for a trust. The trust later requested a refund of the service tax as the activity was not taxable. The refund claim was rejected by the original authority and upheld by the first appellate authority citing time bar.

2. The appellant argued that the service tax collected was not authorized by law and should be treated as a deposit, making the time limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inapplicable. They also contended that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply as the trust had blocked an amount exceeding the service tax claimed, citing relevant case laws to support their arguments.

3. The Revenue argued in favor of the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim based on unjust enrichment and time limitation grounds.

4. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had provided evidence of the trust blocking a significant amount due to the service tax issue, which was not considered by the lower authorities. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, instructing to verify facts, consider unjust enrichment, and review the matter in light of relevant court decisions. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits and left all issues open for the adjudicating authority to decide.

5. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for further examination. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, leaving all issues to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority.