TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member S/Shri S. Bagaria P.Banerjee, both Advocates for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary The appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.206-207/JSR/2013 dated 23.12.2013 passed by Commr. (Appeals) of Central Excise S.Tax, Ranchi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are the appellant is a 100% EOU. They filed refund claims of service tax being unutilized amount of service tax paid on input services under Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. The Adjudicating Authority partly rejected the refund claim on the ground that the claim was filed after expiry of one y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The application in Form A, along with the prescribed enclosures and the relevant extracts of the records maintained under Central Excise Rules, 2002, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, or the Service Tax Rules, 1994 in original, are filed with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of the Central Excise, as the case may be, before the expiry of the period specified inn Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). 5. In terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the relevant date means - (a) in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of excise duty paid is available in respect of the goods themselves or, as the case may be, the excisable materials used in the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineering (I) Ltd. : 2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad.) , the Hon ble Madras High Court held that even though Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, does not cover refund of CENVAT credit, Notification No.5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006, makes it applicable for that purpose. CESTAT's view that no time limit was applicable for refund of CENVAT credit was found to be incorrect. The Tribunal in the case of M/s Paul Mason Consulting India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCEx., S.Tax, Vadodara : 2016 (335) ELT 153 (Tri.-Ahmd.), after following the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court, observed that the refund claim filed within one year from the date of export invoice, is not hit by limitation. The relevant portions of the said decision are reproduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2012, dated 18-6-2012. Therefore, the time limit would be as prescribed in Section 11B. However, as per the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court the relevant date would be the date when the cause for refund has arisen, and this would obviously be when the export has taken place, as is also held by this Tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Limited (supra). 6. In view of the above analysis, we modify the orders of the lower authorities to the extent to hold that the refund claims filed within one year of export invoice would not be hit by the mischief of time-bar. The adjudicating authority may re-compute the refund claims of the appellants accordingly. 8. In view of the above discussions, the Adjudicating Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
