CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – IV [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 73/2023-24 dated 07.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Appeals-II, Delhi]

M/s. Western Union Financial Services Inc …Appellant C/o KPMG (Registered), Lodha Excelus, 2^nd Floor, Apoll Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai - 400011 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax, Delhi …Respondent UG Floor, EIL Annexxe Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, South Delhi - 110066 APPEARANCE:

Shri Mihir Deshmukh and Shri Jai Totlani, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Jaya Kumari, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MRS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 09.03.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 09.03.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50682/2026 DR. RACHNA GUPTA Present appeal is filed to assail the Order-in-Appeal No.73/2023-24 dated 07.02.2024. The facts in brief for the present adjudication are as follows:

1.1 The appellant had filed an four refund claims during November, 2007 to April 2009 (13.11.2007, 30.06.2008, 29.10.2008 and 22.04.2009) seeking the refund of total amount of Rs.22,41,86,725/- pertaining to the period from May 2006 to February 2009. The refund claims were rejected by the Order-in- Original No. 94-96/2010 dated 31.03.2010. Appeal against the said order was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No. 589/2010 dated 31.10.2012 on the ground that the activity of the appellant does not amount to export of service. Being aggrieved of the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal which was decided vide Final Order dated 25.012018 setting aside the orders denying refund claim by the appellant. Pursuant to the said order that the application/refund claim dated 08.03.2022 was again filed to seek the refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.22,41,86,725/-. The said refund has initially been sanctioned vide Order-in-Original No.6/2022-23 dated 27.03.2023 but the amount of interest is calculated from the date of application i.e. 08.03.2022. The said Order-in-Original has been upheld vide the impugned Order-in-

Appeal. Still being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.

2. We have heard Shri Mihir Deshmukh and Shri Jai Totlani, learned Advocates for the appellant and Ms. Jaya kumari, learned Authorized Representative for the department.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that initially following four claims were filed by the appellant:

3.1 These claims were initially rejected on the ground that the appellant activities in not ‘export of service. The said order has been set aside by this Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that once the activity has been held to be the export of service, the appellant is entitled for the said refunds along with interest to be calculated from the date of the original application. The department has wrongly considered the date of second refund claim/application (08.03.2022) which was filed after the order of this Tribunal, the criteria for calculating interest. Learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported as 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC)

(ii) Blackberry India Pvt Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Division, Malaviya – WP (C) No. 9364 of 2023 (iii) Mera Baba Realty Associate (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Serice Tax, Delhi-III reported in 2017 (52) 131 (Del.)

(iv) Haldor Topsoe India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assitant Commissioner of GST (East) reported in 2019 (25) GST 24 (Del)

With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed.

4. Learned Departmental Representative while rebutting to the said submissions has reiterated the findings arrived at by learned Commi