CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No. 87345 of 2025 In Service Tax Appeal No. 87110 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PK/ST-I/MUM/103/2017-18 dated 05.06.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I), Service Tax, Mumbai)

Erudite Eduventures Pvt. Ltd. .… Appellant (Formerly M/s SGR Edu Ventures P. Ltd)

Friendship Centre, Nr. Agripada Police Stn., Opp. YMCA Garden, Mumbai Central, Mumbai – 400 011.

Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai …. Respondent

4^th Floor, New Central Excise Building, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020.

Service Tax Miscellaneous Application No. 87346 of 2025 In Service Tax Appeal No. 87111 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PK/ST-I/MUM/104/2017-18 dated 05.06.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I), Service Tax, Mumbai)

Erudite Eduventures Pvt. Ltd. .… Appellant (Formerly M/s SGR Edu Ventures P. Ltd)

Friendship Centre, Nr. Agripada Police Stn., Opp. YMCA Garden, Mumbai Central, Mumbai – 400 011.

Versus Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai …. Respondent

4^th Floor, New Central Excise Building, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020.

APPEARANCE:

Ms. Lalita Phadke, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Dhananjay Dahiwale, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85663-85664/2026 PER: S.K. MOHANTY Heard both sides and perused the case records.

2. Applicants/Appellants have filed these miscellaneous applications, praying for amendment of the cause title in the appeal filed by them. It has been stated that the respondent’s name and address in the appeal memorandum as ‘Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Mumbai’, may be changed and to be read as “Commissioner of CGST & CX, Nagpur-II”, PO Box No.81, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001 consequent to change in the jurisdiction of such adjudicating authority. Prayer made by the appellants is considered and accordingly, the changed name and jurisdiction of the respondent has been incorporated in the appeal records. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of.

3. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned orders dated 05.06.2017, the appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal. The appellants have assailed the impugned order on the ground that rejection of refund claim by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation is not proper and justified. The appellants have contended that since the service tax was not payable and due to inadvertence, they had paid the service tax into the government exchequer, the benefit of refund should be available and the limitation aspect provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to service tax matters under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be insisted upon. It is an undisputed fact that the refund applications were filed by the appellants beyond the statutory time frame provided under Section 11B ibid. Thus, both the authorities below have denied the benefit of refund solely on the ground of limitation. Insofar as the time limit for filing of the refund application under Section 11B of the Act of 1944 is concerned, there is no ambiguity that the relevant date should be construed as the date of payment of the service tax. The issue with regard to refund of Central Excise duty/Service Tax has been adequately dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India – 1997 (89) ELT 247 (S.C.). In the said judgment, the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have analyzed the limitation aspects on the refund provisions under various circumstances, which are broadly categorized as under:

“(a) The levy is unconstitutional-outside the provisions of the Act or not contemplated by the Act.

(b) The levy is based on misconstruction or wrong or erroneous Interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Ac