CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH - COURT NO. III SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51091 OF 2022 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.19/2021-22 dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) Goods and Service Tax, Delhi]

M/s. INDIABULLS DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LIMITED ….APPELLANT Represented by its Senior Manager, Ms. Vijay Luxmi, M-62 & M-63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 VERSUS COMMISSIONER, DIVISION- CONNAUGHT PLACE, CENTRAL TAX, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX …RESPONDENT Delhi South, 2nd Floor, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place-110 019 AND SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51092 OF 2022 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.18/2021-22 dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal-II) Goods and Service Tax, Delhi]

M/s. INDIABULLS DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LIMITED ….APPELLANT Represented by its Senior Manager, Ms. Vijay Luxmi, M-62 &M-63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 VERSUS COMMISSIONER, DIVISION- CONNAUGHT PLACE, CENTRAL TAX, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX …RESPONDENT Delhi South, 2^nd Floor, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place-110 019 APPEARANCE:

Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Authorised Representative for the respondent CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON'BLE MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NOs.50389-50390/2026 Date of Hearing: 25.02.2026 Date of Decision: 20.03.2026 BINU TAMTA:

1. M/s. IndiaBulls Distribution Service Limited, Appellant is providing Real Estate Brokerage Service to various developers and are engaged in the business of distribution and marketing of third-party products in Real Estate sector and for the said service, they receive brokerage by way of marketing fee from the developer when a customer referred by the appellant books a unit with the developer. The appellant filed refund claim of Rs.6,70,99,213/- on the ground that some of their services rendered to their customers was rejected and not rendered the said services either partly or wholly. The refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority holding the claim to be barred being filed beyond one year from the date of payment of tax as per clause (f) of Explanation-B to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Act, 1944. The appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected on the same ground of limitation by the impugned order³. Hence these appeals.

2. Heard both the sides and perused the case records.

3. Firstly, the learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the rejection of the refund application on the ground of limitation as the same is not applicable in such cases. Secondly, the learned Counsel referred to the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994,

3 Order-in-Appeal Nos.19/2021-22 in Appeal No.ST/51091/22 and Order-in-Appeal No18/2021-22 dated

30.11.2021 in Appeal No.ST/51092 of 2022

which provides for taking of credit of tax paid in respect of which payment received has been returned/credit notes issued for value of service not provided to person to whom invoice has been issued and for such a claim there is no time limit prescribed. Further submitted that the appellant could not take credit of service tax against credit note issued during the period 29.09.2017 to 17.08.2018 and 18.09.2018 to 29.06.2020 as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) as the Finance Act, 1994 was repealed and GST regime came into operation w.e.f. 1.07.2017. Both the above submissions of the learned Counsel has been dealt by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited Vs. Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Tax Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, New Delhi⁴, wherein it was observed:-

“10. The issue of refund in similar circumstances and the contentions raised by the learned Counsel have been considered in series of decisions by different learned Single Members, as referred above. The consistent view taken in all these decisions is that refund claim of service tax paid under the existing