TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that has exported was registered, as contemplated in Para 3(a)(II) and by the time refund applications were filed, Appellant had its Service Tax registration number. Also, Para 2(a) of the said notification puts a restriction for filling more than one refund application for every quarter and it has become a settled principle of Law that the said restriction would not prohibit claiming of Refund for more than one quarter in one application for refund. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The reason for denial of refund on the ground of limitation by taking into account the dates of export invoices as relevant date is not tenable in law, in view of the Larger Bench findings in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, GOA VERSUS M/S. RATIO PHARMA INDIA PVT LTD [ 2015 (4) TMI 462 - CESTAT MUMBAI-LB] and the subsequent amendment made in conformity to the said finding. Therefore, the apprehension of the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) raised in para 6 of his order that prior to 29.11.2013, export invoices were not serially numbered would be of no consequence to the Appellant s case since, no export benefit is claimed for the prior period nor any ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation, improper invoices since issued in Appellant Company s previous name, non-segregation of domestic turnover etc. and only refund to the extent of Rs.14,97,985/- in total was sanctioned by the Refund Sanctioning Authorities through three different orders covering period from October 2013 to March 2015 and a substantial amount claimed in the refund application to the tune of Rs.1,28,41,850/- was refused on the grounds noted above. Appellant preferred appeal against the part rejection order before the Principal Additional Director General, DGPM, WRU, Mumbai as Commissioner (Appeals) in three separate appeals which got disposed of vide common order passed by the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) on 18.04.2018 in conforming the part sanction already allowed by the Refund Sanctioning Authority in these three refund claims made on 30.09.2014, 30.12.2014, 30.05.2015 and rejecting the rest. The legality of the said Order-in-Appeal to the extent of rejection of refund is assailed in these three appeals. 3. During course of hearing of appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Vishal Agarwal with Mr. Abhishek Deodhar submitted that instead of taking the opening balance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (34) STR 437 (Tri-Del.)]; Contata Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (51) STR 423 (Tri.- All.)]; Aircheck India Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (24) GSTL 2014 (Tri- Mumbai)]; Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (45) GSTL 272 (Tri. Del.)], he further submitted that the issue has been settled by this Tribunal that refund cannot be disallowed only on the ground that invoices/duty paying documents were raised against the premises which was not registered. 4. Further, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Shri Vishal Agarwal, submitted that the other ground of rejection, as noted in the Order-in- Original and Order-in-Appeal, is that some of the invoices are invalid as were issued in the previous name of the Appellant firm is not tenable in law for the reason that certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies provides sufficient justification to the fact that present Appellant Company owes its genesis to the previously named Company and both are one and same for the purpose of determining/ascertaining liability of the legal person. His further submissions on this point, with reference to the decision of this Tribunal passed in M/s Saavn Media Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No. A/85395-85396/2023, Mumbai Bench, is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment Mr. Ajay Kumar Shrivastava argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) had convincingly justified the grounds of rejection. In submitting a calculation sheet prepared by him, he further argued that for the period from October 2013 to December 2013 refund claim made was much higher than the output services actually provided during the relevant period for which the proportionate rejection order passed by the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) needs no interference by this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions and perused the case records as well as relied upon judgments. There is no dispute on availability of input balance with the Appellant but the order of rejection of refund rests primarily on two grounds. First, export commenced after October 2013 in which input credits accumulated prior to registration of Appellant Company in 2012 is included as refundable amount. The other reason noted by the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) is that refund is claimed for several quarters in one refund claim application. We do not con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame. 8. In view of our observations noted in the above paragraph on requirement of registration of the factory/Company we are of the considered view that refund of unutilized CENVAT credit in export of services having a purpose to encourage/promote export and earn foreign exchange, minor procedural infraction would not stand in the way of grant of refund and Appellant is, therefore, entitled to get the entire amount of refund claimed for the period from October 2013 to March 2015 except on domestic turnover which was worked out as Rs.1,16,350/- and except an amount of Rs.46,427/- on which it has abandoned its claim. Hence the order THE ORDER 9. The appeals are allowed and the order passed by the Principal ADG as Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-DGPMWRU/ APP-114-116/17-18 dated 18.04.2018 to the extent of rejection of CENVAT credit except on domestic turnover and lack of nexus between input and output services, is here by set aside. Appellant is entitled to get the refund with interest applicable as per law and the Respondent-Department is directed to pay the same within three months of receipt of this order. ( Order pronounced in the open court on 08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
