Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 881 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilized input credit - denial on the ground that they have filed the refund claim beyond period of one year from which they exported their final products - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Commissisoner of Central Excise Versus GTN Engineering 2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that the relevant date should be the date on which the export of goods was made - refund not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim for unutilized input service credit - Timeliness of filing refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and Notification No.5/2006-CE NT - Interpretation of relevant date for filing refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - Applicability of judgments by the Madras High Court in similar cases Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a refund claim for unutilized input service credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and Notification No.5/2006-CE NT. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax for being filed beyond the one-year period from the export of final products, as required by Notification No.5/2006-CE NT. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner(Appeals) who also rejected the claim, leading to the present appeal. 2. The main argument presented by the appellant was that the relevant date for filing the refund claim should be one year from the last day of the quarter, not the date of export. The appellant contended that the claim was filed within the time limit as per Section 11B. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) relied on judgments by the Madras High Court, including GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. case, which held that the date of export is the relevant date for the limitation period. 3. The Assistant Commissioner's decision was upheld based on the interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act as per the Madras High Court judgments. The Court emphasized that the limitation period for refund claims is crucial and must be adhered to. The Court cited the cases of GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. and Celebrity Designs India to support the decision that the date of export is the relevant date for filing refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and upheld the decision to dismiss the appeal. The Tribunal concurred with the Madras High Court's interpretation of the relevant date for filing refund claims under Section 11B. The judgment highlights the importance of complying with statutory timelines for refund claims and the significance of judicial precedents in determining such matters. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision underscores the adherence to statutory provisions and judicial interpretations in matters related to refund claims under the Central Excise Act. The case serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing the timeliness and substantiation of refund claims, as evidenced by the reliance on precedents set by the Madras High Court in similar cases.
|