From the record, as published by the registry
No order text is published upstream for this record. The document itself carries the full text.
This is one of 3,129 CESTAT Service Tax Appeal cases decided by the CESTAT in 2026.
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 548/2016 (STA-I) dated 01.09.2016 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I), Newry Towers, Plot No. 2054, I Block, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040)
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Appellant Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No. 2054-I, 2nd Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
Versus
M/s. YCH Logistics (India) Private Limited ... Respondent
Phase II, Plot No. DVI, SIPCOT Hi-Tech SEZ, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram – 602 105.
And
Service Tax Appeal No. 40911 of 2018 with
Service Miscellaneous Application No. 40181 of 2026
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 469/2017 (CTA-II) dated 29.12.2017 passed by Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-II), Newry Towers, Plot No. 2054, I Block, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040)
M/s. YCH Logistics India Private Limited
...Appellant
Plot No. D VI, Phase II, SIPCOT Hi-Tech SEZ, Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram – 602 105.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No. 2054-I, 2nd Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
APPEARANCE:
For the Assessee : Mr. Sivarajan, Consultant Mr. Krishnakumar, Consultant For the Revenue : Mr. M. Selvakumar, Authorised Representative
2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V., MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
FINAL ORDER Nos. 41051-41052 / 2026
DATE OF HEARING : 16.06.2026 DATE OF DECISION : 24.09.2026
Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO
The present appeals, namely Appeal No. C/40911/2018 filed by M/s YCH Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) and Appeal No. C/40138/2017 filed by the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (hereinafter referred to as “the Revenue”), arise out of Order-in-Appeal No. 469/2017 (CTA-II) dated 29.12.2017 and Order-in-Appeal No. 548/2016 (STA-I) dated 01.09.2016, respectively. Since both appeals arise from the same refund proceedings and involve common facts and issues, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3
May 2009, the appellant discharged service tax of Rs.55,91,185/- through Challan No.50297 dated 05.10.2009. The payment was inadvertently not reflected in the relevant ST-3 return and no CENVAT credit on this challan was taken until February 2011. During departmental audit for FY 200809 to 2010-11, non-payment of service tax on import of services was pointed out. While making payment relating to subsequent years, the appellant inadvertently paid the very same FY 2008-09 liability once again through Challan No.10014 dated 02.02.2011. The said challan comprised service tax of Rs.1,31,70,733/-, of which Rs.55,91,185/represented the FY 2008-09 liability already paid in 2009, while Rs.75,79,548/- related to FY 2009-10. Interest of Rs.12,50,562/- relating to FY 2008-09 was paid through Challan No.10003 dated 14.02.2011. On discovery of the duplicate payment, the appellant filed a refund claim on 13.06.2011 for Rs.68,41,747/-, comprising Rs.55,91,185/being the service tax paid for the second time through Challan No.10014 dated 02.02.2011 and Rs.12,50,562/towards interest. The first adjudicating authority rejected the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals), by Order-in-Appeal No.548/2016 dated 01.09.2016, set aside the said order and allowed the refund. The Revenue filed Appeal No.C/40138/2017 against that order. Subsequently, the appellant's fresh refund proceedings culminated in Order-in-
4
Appeal No.469/2017 dated 29.12.2017 confirming rejection of the refund, giving rise to Appeal No.C/40911/2018.
3.1 The Ld. Chartered Accountants Shri Sivarajan, Shri Krishna, Smt. Usha appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire controversy arises from the inadvertent second payment of the very same FY 2008-09 service tax liability. The first payment of Rs.55,91,185/- was made on 05.10.2009, whereas the identical liability was again paid on 02.02.2011 during audit. The appellant contended that the documentary evidence, including the two challans, reconciliation, books of account, audited financial statements and Chartered Accountant's certificate, establishes the duplicate payment.
3.2 It was submitted that the authorities in the second round had themselves accepted the factual position that the amount had been paid twice. The appellant specifically relied upon the observations in OIO-2 and OIA-2 referring to the “duplicate payment” and the “second payment”. It was therefore contended that the surviving controversy was only whether the duplicate payment could be denied refund on the ground of unjust enrichment or on the basis of CENVAT credit allegedly relating to the second payment.
5
3.3 The appellant further submitted that the first payment of Rs.55,91,185/- alone gave rise to CENVAT credit and that the CENVAT credit of Rs.1,50,41,627/- availed in February 2011 did not include the duplicate portion of Challan No.10014. The reconciliation furnished by the appellant showed that the February 2011 credit comprised Rs.55,91,185/- relating to the October 2009 payment, Rs.18,70,893/being regular input-service credit for February 2011 and Rs.75,79,548/- relating to the nonduplicate portion of Challan No.10014. It was therefore submitted that no CENVAT credit was ever availed on the duplicate payment.
3.4 It was also submitted that the disputed amount continued to be shown as recoverable from the Department in the books of account and was not adjusted against expenditure or passed on to any customer. The Statutory Auditor's certificate dated 31.01.2017 specifically recorded that the appellant had paid the service tax twice and had neither availed nor utilised the duplicate amount under Challan No.10014. The audited financial statements from FY 2011-12 to FY 2016-17 were relied upon to show that the amount continued to be reflected as a receivable from the Department.
6
3.5 On the issue of the ST-3 return and the alleged wrong accounting head/service category, the appellant relied upon CBEC Circular No.58/7/2003-ST dated 20.05.2003, as also M/s Aaryaa Construction Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, 2025-VIL-1030-CESTAT-CHE-ST; M/s Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Raipur, 2017-VIL-391-CESTAT-DEL-ST; M/s Owens Corning (I) Ltd Vs Commissioner of S. Tax, Mumbai-II, 2019-VIL559-CESTAT-MUM-ST; Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & C, Goa, 2013-VIL-119-CESTAT-MUM-ST; and Devang Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs UOI, 2015-VIL-600-GUJ-CE. The submission was that once the tax liability had been discharged, a wrong accounting code, service category or non-reporting in ST-3 could not justify denial of refund or a second demand of the same tax.
3.6 On non-reporting in ST-3, reliance was placed on M/s. Gail India Ltd Vs Commissioner Of GST & Central Excise, Puducherry, 2023-VIL-568-CESTAT-CHE-ST; Broadcom India Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of S. Tax, 2016 (42) STR 79 (Tri. Bang.); Warburg Pincus India Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt. Commissioner, Mumbai South, 2023-VIL299-CESTAT-MUM-ST; Jagdamba Polymers Ltd., 2010 (253) ELT 626 (Tri. Ahmd.); and Morning Star India Pvt. Ltd., 2017-TIOL-3942-CESTAT Del . It was submitted that an ST-3
7
omission is, at best, a procedural lapse and cannot defeat a refund otherwise established from primary records.
3.7 In support of the contention regarding unjust enrichment and the CENVAT credit reconciliation, reliance was placed on ITC Ltd Vs C.GST&CE, Coimbatore, 2025-VIL1030-CESTAT-CHE-ST and CCT, Hyderabad GST Vs UPL Ltd., 2019-VIL-582-CESTAT-HYD-ST. The appellant also relied upon the principle under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 relating to the “first-in, first-out” basis of utilisation, contending that the credit availed in February 2011 necessarily related to the earlier October 2009 payment and not the duplicate payment.
two challans related to one and the same taxable transaction. Revenue also relied upon the alleged discrepancies between ST-3 returns and accrued tax, accounting treatment, CENVAT credit and the requirements of Section 11B, including unjust enrichment.
8
Issue No. (i): Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of Rs.55,91,185/-, being the service tax paid for the second time on 02.02.2011 in respect of the FY 2008-09 liability already discharged on 05.10.2009, under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
9
Rs.55,91,185/- was made through Challan No.50297 dated 05.10.2009. The same amount was again included in Challan No.10014 dated 02.02.2011. The appellant's case is not that the second payment discharged another liability; it is that the very same FY 2008-09 liability was inadvertently paid again during the audit. Significantly, OIO-2 and OIA-2 themselves refer to the payment as the “duplicate payment” and the “second payment”. The appellant's additional submissions have specifically drawn our attention to these findings.
10
Rs.18,70,893/- towards regular input-service credit for February 2011 and Rs.75,79,548/- being the non-duplicate portion of Challan No.10014. The appellant has consistently maintained that the duplicate portion was not taken as credit and continued to be shown as receivable. The Statutory Auditor's certificate records that the appellant had paid the service tax twice and had not availed or utilised the duplicate amount.
11
12
correspondence dated 15.06.2012 and 18.07.2012 seeking permission to avail CENVAT credit on the subsequent payment. These communications are consistent with the appellant's stand that the duplicate payment was separately identifiable and had not been taken as credit. The appellant's case is further supported by its reconciliation and accounting records.
13
Issue No. (ii): Whether the appellant is entitled to consequential interest on the admissible refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
14
has to be considered under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applicable to service tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant has relied upon Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Union of India, 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, 2022-TIOL-1574-HCKAR in support of its claim that statutory interest follows where refund is not sanctioned within the prescribed period. The claim for interest is therefore allowed in accordance with Section 11BB and the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions.
15
the very basis of the Revenue's challenge stands negatived by our finding that the payment was a duplicate payment and that the appellant was entitled to refund. The Revenue's appeal therefore has no merit.
20. In the result:
iv. The appellant is held entitled to refund of Rs.55,91,185/-, being the duplicate service tax payment made through Challan No.10014 dated 02.02.2011, along with consequential interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in accordance with law.
v. Order-in-Appeal No. 548/2016 (STA-I) dated 01.09.2016, having allowed the appellant's refund claim, is upheld and the Revenue's challenge thereto is rejected.
16
terms.
(Order pronounced in open court on 24.09.2026)
Sd/Sd/- (AJAYAN T.V.) (VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MK
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a service tax matter before CESTAT.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
