TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed three appeals. In all the three appeals, the issue involved is identical. Therefore all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. With regard to Appeal No. E/27947/2013 and Appeal No. E/27352/2013 they arise out of the common impugned order dated 22.07.2013 and 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/27947/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant submitted that by the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund only on the ground of time-bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 without going into the merits of the case. Therefore he has confined his argument only on limitation in these appeals. He further submitted that the issue of limitation under Section 11B does not apply for the issues relating to refund of accumulated cenvat credit and in support of this submission he relied upon the decision of the Hon 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of IGS Imaging Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2015 (322) E.L.T. 757 (Tri.-Bang.)] wherein this Tribunal after considering the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. cited supra and also by considering the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in 2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-BANG. held that the date of receipt of consideration has to be taken into account for calculating the limitation period of 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 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
