2021 (7) TMI 163 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT Credit - clearances under CT1 Certificates for export - applicability of time limitation - paragraph 3(b)(i) of the N/N. 27/2017-C.E.(N.T.) - HELD THAT - Reliance placed on an order of the Mumbai Bench of the CESTAT in the case of OCEANS CONNECT INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS CCE PUNE-III 2016 (9) TMI 377 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein, after considering the arguments and the provisions, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that From the aforesaid provision in clause (D) of Rule 5(1) for export turnover of services, one of the element is payment received during the relevant period for export services. In the present case as per the FIRC the payment in convertible foreign currency was received during the relevant quarter therefore the same should be considered as export turnover during the relevant quarter only. There is no provision in the definition of turnover of services that the export turnover should be taken as per the date of invoice. The refund has to be computed by taking date of FIRC during the particular quarter for the purpose of export turnover. The denial of refund of CENVAT Credit as time-barred is not acceptable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:

Issue: Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and selling transformers, filed a refund claim of ?23,78,227 under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the quarter July 2015 to September 2015. The Original Authority sanctioned a refund of ?1,29,488 but rejected ?22,42,907, citing Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the first proviso to Section 142(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017. The First Appellate Authority upheld this decision. The appellant contended that the refund claim was filed within one year from the end of the quarter, as required by Notification No. 27/2017-C.E.(N.T.). The appellant relied on legal precedents and argued that the denial of the refund as time-barred was not justified. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appeal with consequential benefits as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the denial of the CENVAT Credit refund as time-barred was not acceptable. The decision was based on the appellant's compliance with the timeline specified in Notification No. 27/2017-C.E.(N.T.) and supported by legal precedents and relevant provisions. The Tribunal's ruling overturned the earlier decisions and granted the appellant the refund claimed under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.