2022 (12) TMI 563

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edit Rules, 2004. 2. The issue involved herein is whether the appellant is eligible for interest on the delayed sanction of refund claim filed by them under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? 3. The facts leading to filing of instant appeal are stated in brief as follows. The appellant is engaged in the provision of business support service to its customer located outside India which qualifies as "export" under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant exported the service without payment of any Service Tax. In terms of Rule 5 ibid read with notification 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 the appellant claimed refund of Cenvat Credit accumulated on account of the export of services for the period April, 2013 to September, 2015. The afores .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ons: (i) Hero Motors Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad 2014 (307) ELT 138(Tri-Del) (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 356(Guj) and approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2011 (274) ELT A110 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru vs. Netapp India Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (32) GSTL 176 (Kar) Per contra learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings included in the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the instant appeal. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Authorised Representative for Revenue and perused the case records and the written submission/synopsis filed by the learned Counsel along with case laws. Before the learned Commissioner, the counsel f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Ltd. 2010 (259) ELT 356 (Guj) which has been maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2011 (274) ELT A110 (SC). In the aforesaid decision the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that when there is delay in sanctioning the refund under Rule 5 and Notification dated 18.06.2012, the provisions of Section 11BB would be clearly attracted. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the matter of Commissioner vs. Rajalakshmi Textile Processors Ltd.; 2008 (221) ELT 38 (Mad.) and recently Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru vs. Netapp India Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (32) GSTL 176 (Kar) has also decided this issue in favour of assessee and against the Revenue by dismiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X