2017 (10) TMI 448 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - case of appellant is that service tax paid by them for the amount received from ESIC, service tax is not leviable as the said premises is let out to government organisation - time limitation - whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is hit by limitation or otherwise? - Held that - it is admitted by both sides that appellant is not required to pay service tax on an amount received as rent from ESIC. Appellant seems to have paid the said amount under mistake of law and has correctly filed an application for refund of the same - Ld. Counsel is correct in referring to the decision of Apex Court in the case of ITC Limited 1993 (7) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein their Lodships have settled the law, and held that if any amount is paid which was not payable by the party under the provisions of statute but had in fact paid under mistake of law, the party has to write to recover it that there is corresponding legal obligation on the part of the government to refund excess duty so collected as excess collection in such cases will be without authority of law - refund to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is hit by limitation.
2. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the rent received from ESIC.
3. Whether the refund claim is valid under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The main issue in this case is whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. The appellant filed a refund claim after paying service tax on the rent received from ESIC, a government organization. The first appellate authority contended that the refund claim was hit by limitation as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of one year under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 2: The question of whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on the rent received from ESIC is crucial. The appellant argued that they are not required to pay service tax as the premises were let out to a government organization. The adjudicating authority agreed with the appellant and granted a refund. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support their argument that the tax liability itself is in question and, therefore, the refund claim is valid.

Issue 3: The validity of the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was a key aspect of the case. The appellant contended that the amount paid as service tax was done under a mistake of law and should be considered as a deposit, not tax liability. The tribunal analyzed various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, to establish that if an amount is paid under a mistake of law and a refund is claimed, it cannot be considered hit by limitation.

The tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and the legal precedents cited, concluded that the refund claim was not hit by limitation. The tribunal emphasized that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax on the rent received from ESIC, and the amount paid as tax was under a mistake of law. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and directed the revenue to refund the amount to the appellant. The decision was based on established legal principles and precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court.