2020 (4) TMI 806 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of Service tax - amount was paid under protest - time limitation - unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The facts are not in dispute that this Tribunal held that appellants are not liable to pay service tax vide order issued on 16.11.2016 and the refund claims were filed by the appellants on 02.11.2012, therefore, the impugned refund claims were filed within one year of the date of issuance of the order by this Tribunal - the relevant date for filing the refund claim is 16.11.2016 and from the date within one year, they were required to file refund claim in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which the appellants have done - thus, refund claim cannot be rejected as barred by limitation. Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The service tax has been paid by the appellant under protest. Moreover, at the time of issuance of invoice, they have not charged any service tax from the service recipient for reimbursement of any amount towards service tax to the appellant - the appellant have passed the bar of unjust enrichment which is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The appellant are entitled to the refund of the amount for which they have filed refund claims - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection as time-barred.
2. Failure to pass the bar of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
1. The appellants appealed against the rejection of their refund claim as time-barred and for failing to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. The Revenue contended that the refund claims were filed beyond the one-year period and upheld the impugned order.

2. The appellants argued that the refund claims were not time-barred as they were filed within one year of the Tribunal's order, which held them not liable to pay service tax. They also asserted that they had not recovered any service tax from the service recipient, thus passing the bar of unjust enrichment.

3. The Tribunal found that the refund claims were indeed filed within one year of the Tribunal's order, as required by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the claims could not be rejected as time-barred.

4. Additionally, it was established that the appellants had paid the service tax under protest and had not charged any service tax from the service recipient at the time of invoicing. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants had passed the bar of unjust enrichment in this case.

5. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the refund claims, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellants the entitled refund amount. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, as per the law.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of refund claim rejection and unjust enrichment, along with the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's final decision in favor of the appellants.