TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 attributed to export made during that period - the appellants are entitled for the refund claim of accumulated Cenvat Credit attributed to the export made during the last one year from the date of file, i.e. 24/04/2012, Cenvat Credit relatable to the export prior to one year is time barred. The adjudicating authority should re-quantify the refund - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/87553/13 - A/89355/17/STB - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - Mr.Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.Srikanth Balakrishnan, CA for appellant Shri.M.K.Sarangi, Jt. Comm. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that the appellants are engaged in providing taxable services under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a 100% EOU without any domestic sales. In such case all the input services and credit thereof is attributed to the export of services, therefore, no one to one co-relation is required to be established. He submits that it has been held in various cases that even the Cenvat Credit of the past period it is refundable against the export services for the subsequent period. There is no one to one co-relation is required. He placed reliance on the following judgements: a) Ionnor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1691-CESTAT-Del b) MWH Resource Net India Pvt. Ltd. 2017-TIOL-450-CESTAT-Mum c) Amdocs Business Services Pvt. Ltd. 2013-TIOL-324-CESTAT-MUM He also referred to the Board's Circular No.120/01/2010-ST dated 19/01/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund. 3. On the other hand, Shri M.K.Sarangi, Ld. Jt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He referred to the Notification No.05/2006-CE(NT) particularly clause (b) of first para of the Notification wherein it is provided that refund of Cenvat Credit shall be allowed in respect of only those input or input services, which are used in providing output services which has been exported without payment of service tax. In the present case, the inputs were received during the period 16/05/2008 to 31/03/2010 and obviously these services were used during the said period whereas the refund claim was filed on 24/04/2012, therefore, the refund claim in respect of input and input service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on merit. However, it is apparent from the fact that the appellants have been exporting their entire services. However, in respect of refund claim for the period 16/05/2008 to 31/03/2010 was supposed to be filed during this period periodically monthly/quarterly. We are also of the view that even if the yearly refund is filed the same is admissible in terms of Section11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is equally applicable in the case of refund of service tax. However, the appellant chosen to file the refund claim on 24/04/2012, therefore, in our considered view the refund is appears to be time barred. If the claim of the appellant is accepted that even though the Cenvat Credit pertaining to 16/05/2008 to 31/03/2010 then the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore the facts of the case is different. In the case of Amdocs Business Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , we find that the issue involved was that refund of Cenvat Credit can be filed irrespective of when the credit was taken. In case of service provider exporting 100% EOU of their services. In this case the fact was that the refund was restricted to a particular quarter against the total credit availed during the previous period. However, in this case there was no issue of time bar. The entire period for which the lower authorities have rejected the claim was within one year whereas in the present case refund for the period 16/05/2008 to 31/03/2010 was claimed after one year. Therefore, the fact of the present case is different from the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
