TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cases are remanded back to the original authority to pass de novo order regarding the refund claim - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/25472, 27448, 27449, 27450/2013 & E/21410, 21411/2015 - Final Order No. 20570 - 20575 / 2018 - Dated:- 13-4-2018 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. S. Sivakumar, Advocate Mr. T. R. Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S. GARG These six appeals have been filed by the Department against the different impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has remanded the matter with a direction to the original authority to reconsider the refund claims filed by the assessee and to pass the orders on merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the sake of convenience, the facts of the appeal No. E/25472/2013 are taken. The respondent i.e., M/s. Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in the manufacture of export of organic compounds. The assessee had filed refund claim on 30.9.2010 in respect of the accumulated CENVAT credit on input services for ₹ 17,33,716/- pertaining to the period July 2009 to September 2009 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE dated 14.3.2006. After following the due process of law, the original authority vide Order-in-Original dated 20.9.2011 rejected the refund claim of the assessee on the ground that the claim was time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, the learned AR also submitted that the law relating to mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011-TIOL-928- KAR-HC is also not applicable in the instant case. He further submitted that the facts in the present case are totally different than the facts in the mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. case. He further submitted that mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. case relates to export of service; whereas the present case relates to export of goods. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following case laws: CCE vs. M/s. Celebrity Designs India Pvt. Ltd.: 2015-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-CX Banswara Syntex Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (345) ELT 547 (Tri.-Del.) Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Ors.: 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins to Notification No.47/2007-ST dated 6.10.2002 which allows refund of service tax paid on specified services used for export of goods. 5.1 Further, the learned CA, Shri Rajesh Kumar appearing on behalf of the some of the respondent has also adopted the arguments of the learned counsel Shri Sivakumar and has submitted that in view of the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, time limit as prescribed under Section 11B is not applicable. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. United Crane Components Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018-TIOL-978- CESTAT-MUM. wherein the Revenue appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. 6. After considering the submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date on which such goods pass the frontier. 6.1 Further, I find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Banswara Syntex Ltd. vs. CCE cited supra has also relied upon the decision of M/s. GTN Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. decided by the Hon ble Madras High Court. Similarly, the Division bench of this Tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. cited supra has also considered the relevant date for filing the refund and applicability of Section 11B to the refund under Rule 5 and has come to the conclusion that Section 11B is applicable and the relevant date would be the date of export of goods as held by the Madras High Court in the case of M/s. GTN Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. Now, the respondents have produced the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
