9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing the facility of CENVAT Credit on input services for providing the output services. As the output services are exported by the appellant they filed application for refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. The details of the period involved, the amount of refund claimed, and the reason for rejection as put forward by the appellant is shown in the table below: Appeal No. Party Period Claim Amount (Rs.) Rejected in O-I-O Rejected in O-I-A Issue in dispute Before CESTAT Remarks ST/28207/2013 Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services India Pvt. Ltd. Jan' 12 to Mar' 12 46,46,571 OIO No. 54/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; For earlier period Jan'11 to Mar'11 vide Final Order 25497/2013 dt. 09.07.2013 the Hon'ble CESTAT Bangalore Bench has remanded back to original authority for verification. Denovo proceeding is under process. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. S. Tirumalai submitted that in appeal ST/28207/2013 and ST/28210/2013 the refund has been rejected on the ground that the claim is hit by limitation. He submitted that the authorities below had computed the period from the date of export of services and thus held that the refund claim is time barred. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the case of export services the period prescribed for filing refund claim has to be computed from the date of invoice/ date of rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invoices issued to the un-registered premises at Meenakshi Tech Park. He relied upon the decision in M/s Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Vs CCE, Mangalore [2013 (30) STR 475 (Tri.-Bang)] and argued that if the appellant had more than one premise the appellant ought to have taken ISD registration and taken the credits availed by the different units. 5. I have heard both sides. In appeal ST/28207/2013 and ST/28210/2013 the authorities below have held that the refund claims are time barred. The period has been computed by the authorites below, from the date of export of services instead of computing the time from the date of receipt of foreign currency or the date of invoices. In the case of CCE, ST, Hyde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. Following the said decisions, I hold that the non-registration of premises is not sufficien ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
