2017 (1) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd Appeal No. E/27953/2013 arises out of the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 wherein by the impugned order cenvat credit refund on limitation (01.01.2010 to 22.03.2010 has been denied on time-bar). The details of the appeals are as under: Sl. No. Appeal No. Period involved Order-in-Original No. Refund Amount involved (Rs.) 1 E/27947/2013          July 2010 to September 2010 08/2012 dated 24.01.2012 12,34,983/- 2 E/27952/2013 April 2010 to June 2010          425/2011 dated 28.12.2011 7,63,729/- 3 E/27953/2013 January 2010 to March 2010 365/2011 dated 18.11.2011 83,486/- 2.  Briefly the facts of the present case are that the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2011-TIOL-928-HC-KAR-ST] wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as "in so far as refund of cenvat credit is concerned, the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for accumulated cenvat credit." 4.1.  Learned counsel further submits that the jurisdictional First Appellate Authority in his Order-in-Appeal No. 378/2012 CE dated 15.11.2012, in the case of the appellant M/s. Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore relying on the ratio of decision in the case cited supra of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, set aside the order rejecting claim of refund and allowed the refund claim in the appeal. Similarly the jurisd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... one year. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that a decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indago Vs. CST reported in 2016-TIOL-1020-CESTAT-MUM. wherein the Tribunal has held that the period of one year should be computed from the date FIRC was received. 5.  On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that as per Section 11B read with Notification 5/2006 CE dated 14.03.2006, the refund claim should be filed within a period of one year from the date of export of the impugned goods. 6.  After considering the submissions of both the parties and the judgments cited supra, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are not sustainable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X