2014 (4) TMI 173 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim of unutilized cenvat credit- Date of export - whether the refund claims rejected by the lower authorities holding the same as hit by limitation is correct as per the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with notification No.05/2006-CE(NT) - Held that - the relevant date should be the date on which the export of the goods was made - Decision in the case of Swagat Synthetics 2008 (7) TMI 208 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT distinguished - Following decision of Commissioner of C. Ex., Coimbatore Vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims under notification no.05/2006-CE(NT) rejected as hit by limitation.
2. Calculation of total turnover for refund claims.

Issue 1: Refund claims under notification no.05/2006-CE(NT) rejected as hit by limitation:
The appellant filed two refund claims under notification no.05/2006-CE(NT) for unutilized Cenvat Credit. The lower authorities rejected parts of the claims, leading to appeals. The appellant argued that the claims were not beyond the limitation period as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The first appellate authority further reduced the claims, citing limitation issues. The appellant contended that the total turnover calculation was incorrect as they were exporting all services, eliminating local turnover. The Departmental Representative referenced the High Court judgment in Commissioner of C. Ex., Coimbatore Vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd., emphasizing the application of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, citing the High Court's interpretation and the relevance of Rule 5 in determining the relevant date for refund claims, ultimately rejecting the appeals.

Issue 2: Calculation of total turnover for refund claims:
The dispute also involved the reworking of the total turnover for the refund claims. The appellant argued that the first appellate authority incorrectly considered the total turnover by including local turnover, which was not applicable due to the appellant's export-only services. The Departmental Representative supported the reworking of total turnover and referred to relevant judgments emphasizing the importance of considering later decisions for resolving conflicting issues. The appellant, in rejoinder, cited the precedence set by the territorial jurisdictional High Court and the High Court of Bombay. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, concluded that the total turnover calculation was appropriate, given the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the rejection of refund claims based on limitation issues and the calculation of total turnover. The judgment highlighted the significance of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the applicability of High Court interpretations in similar cases. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances surrounding the refund claims, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeals.