TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be denied while deciding refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules - except for Health Insurance, the nexus of other services to the output services have been decided. Therefore, the appellants are eligible for the credit and consequential benefit of refund. Health Insurance Service - HELD THAT:- It is found that the Authorized Representative has submitted that w.e.f. 1st April, 2011, Health/ Medical Insurance has been specifically excluded from the definition of Input Service in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the same has been upheld in the cases of BHARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BANGALORE NORTH WEST COMMISSIONERATE [ 2019 (6) TMI 67 - CESTAT BANGALORE] . Therefore, the credit of ₹ 2,38,404/- availed by the appellants is not admissible to them. Also, the appellants have wrongly availed CENVAT credit even when the invoices were not available with them. Learned Counsel for the appellants has fairly conceded that this credit of ₹ 4,65,712/- availed by them and claimed for refund is not admissible to them. Hence, the appellants are not entitle to the refund of ₹ 4,65,712/-. Also, the appellants have availed CENVAT credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authority such blatantly wrong and perverse orders. Without going into the merits, the appellants succeed on this count alone. Accordingly, the appellants are eligible for refund on this count. Appeal allowed in part. - ST/20676-20678/2021 - FINAL ORDER NO. 20200-20202/2022 - Dated:- 27-4-2022 - MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri Jayaram Hiregange, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P.Rama Holla, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The appellants, M/s Methode Electronics (India) Private Limited have filed these three appeals against the impugned orders as below: Sl. No. Appeal No. OIA No. and Date Impugned period 1. ST/20676/2021 153-155/2021 dated 30.03.02021 (a) October 2016 to December 2016 (b) January 2017 to March 2017 2. ST/20677/2021 153-155/2021 dated 30.03.2021 (a) April 2012 to September 2012 (b) October 2013 to December 2013 (c) January 2014 to March 2014 (d) April 2014 to June 2014 (e) Octob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be availed only for the quarter for export does not apply as has been clarified in the said Circular. Therefore, total rejection of refund on this ground alone is unwarranted. 18 .. ii. The Order-in-Original listed at S. No.5 in Table supra is set aside and the corresponding appeal against this OIO is allowed by way of a remand to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication taking due note and cognizance of the discussions on specific issues in the preceding paras (para 12 supra) and the general principles as laid down in this order. The appellant shall furnish the requisite documents as are statutorily required, before the original adjudicating authority, who shall process the claims and pass appropriate speaking orders after following the principles of natural justice. 2.2.2. He submits that Department has not appealed against the order and therefore the same is binding on them and the same cannot be ignored in the second round of litigation. Further, he submits that the original authority finds as follows: 17. On verification of the input invoices and CENVAT Register for the period April, 2012 to June, 2012, it was observed that the input cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. In this connection claimant in his reply to SCN dated 23.07.2013 denying the objection stated since the proviso to sub rule (2) of Rule 5 as amended by Notification 18/2012 CE (NT) dated 17.03.2012 provides a window to file refund under the erstwhile provisions. However, they have filed updated revised refund application in Form A in the format prescribed under Notification No.27/2012 CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 with relevant enclosures with reply to SCN and along with revised refund application claiming refund amount of ₹ 35,85,534/-. I find that claimant‟s request merit consideration as during the transitional period, it is quite possible that procedural lapse of above sort is likely to happen and therebefore it appears that such a procedural lapse is condonable as long as export of service, receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange and other statutory procedures followed are not in doubt or dispute. Accordingly, I proceed to examine the case in the light of provisions contained in the amended Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012. 2.2.4. He further submits that in the following cases, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not pertain to the period for which refund claimed; clear findings were given in the OIO and OIA. Learned Authorized Representative further submits that the items on which the credit was availed by the appellant and claimed for refund are not input services relatable to the export service made. He also submits that this Bench in the case of John Deere India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held as follows: 5.4 .. We find that the formula given for the calculation of eligible refund and the definition of Net Cenvat Credit are very clear. It is obvious that during the relevant period applies to both the components. Therefore, we find that the contention of the Revenue is correct. We hold that the words during the relevant‟ period apply both to the Net Cenvat Credit and the amounts referred to in Rule 3 (5C). We do not find any ambiguity in this regard. 5.5 .. 5.6. We find that the Revenue‟s contention is on a strong footing. The definition of net Cenvat credit‟ uses only one , before the word relevant period‟. Therefore, the word relevant period‟ should necessarily apply to both net Cenvat Credit‟ as well as the rebate refers to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. (supra). Therefore, I hold that the credit of ₹ 2,38,404/- availed by the appellants is not admissible to them. Similarly, I find that the appellants have wrongly availed CENVAT credit even when the invoices were not available with them. Learned Counsel for the appellants has fairly conceded that this credit of ₹ 4,65,712/- availed by them and claimed for refund is not admissible to them. Hence, I hold that the appellants are not entitle to the refund of ₹ 4,65,712/-. Also, the appellants have availed CENVAT credit of ₹ 11,354/- on the strength of invoices which are not addressed to the company. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the refund of this amount was not granted on the ground that the invoice was not on the name of the registered premises of the company but was in the name of the company. However, no evidence to this effect has been produced by the learned Counsel. Hence, I find that this credit is also not admissible to the appellants. The appellants have also submitted that a refund of ₹ 200/- was denied on no specific grounds and there appear to be a calculation error. In the result, I ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore during the relevant period. We find that the formula given for the calculation of eligible refund and the definition of Net Cenvat Credit are very clear. It is obvious that during the relevant period applies to both the components. Therefore, we find that the contention of the Appeal No. ST/86111 ST/86112/2015 MUM 13 Revenue is correct. We hold that the words during the relevant‟ period apply both to the Net Cenvat Credit and the amounts referred to in Rule 3 (5C). We do not find any ambiguity in this regard. I find no reason as to why the above decision should not be applied to the impugned case. I find that learned Counsel for the appellants relying on the same case submits that the refund claim being filed within one year in terms of Notification No.27/2012 should be entertained. I find that the learned Counsel for the appellants has not appreciated the facts of the case. In the above cited case, CESTAT while holding that the refund claim needs to be filed within the time limit specified under Notification No.27/2012, has given a categorical finding that the words during the relevant period are as much applicable to the credit availed as it applies to the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
