2017 (7) TMI 48 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - refund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Rule 5 of CCR - Held that - the relevant date for the purpose of time limit would start from the date on which final products are cleared for export - the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority to decide the matter keeping in view the law laid down in GTN Engineering Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 960 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that the relevant date should be the date on which the export of the goods was made and for such goods - matter on remand. Refund claim - input services - denial on account of nexus - advertisement services - membership charges - travel agent services - housekeeping service - CA service - ESI clarification - Held that - the input service fall in the definition of input services and the appellants are entitled for refund of the same. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for claiming refund under Section 11B of the Act.
2. Eligibility of input services for refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. Time Limitation for Refund Claim:
The appellant contended that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply to refund claims related to input service credit, citing the case of mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CST. However, the AR argued that the time limit is applicable, relying on decisions like Aman Electrical Manufacturing Co. and CCE Vs. M/s. Celebrity Designs India Pvt. Ltd. The AR supported the application of the limitation period from the date of export of final products, as per the judgment in CCE, Coimbatore Vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to the original authority for determining the quantum of refund claim in accordance with the law laid down in GTN Engineering Ltd.

2. Eligibility of Input Services for Refund:
The appellant claimed that certain input services like advertising, membership charges, travel agent services, housekeeping services, and chartered accountant services are eligible for refund as they are integral to the manufacturing process. The appellant provided a detailed submission with a tabular representation of each input service, its nexus with the final product, and relevant case laws supporting their claim. The Tribunal acknowledged the nexus between input services and the manufacturing process, allowing the refund on certain input services while denying it on others based on their direct relation to the export of goods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of time limitation for refund claims and the eligibility of input services comprehensively, providing a detailed analysis based on legal precedents and submissions from both parties. The matter was remanded to the original authority for further consideration in line with the legal principles established in relevant judgments.