2013 (12) TMI 157 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 - Input invoices were not raised in period January to March, 2012 - Held that - input invoices are dated prior to the period of refund claim and the date of payment made to the input service provider is also prior to the claim of the refund - refund of credit can be allowed of the past period in subsequent quarters and there is no such bar in the Notification N0. 5/2006 - there is no bar in allowing the refund of the Cenvat credit pertaining to the period prior to refund period claimed by the appellant - these invoices are not in the name of the appellant and in fact are in the name of the M/s Niranjan Seshadri. I find as these invoices are not in the name of the appellant unit, the lower authority has rightly denied the refund in respect of the Cenvat credit in respect of these invoices - Following decision of CCE Vs. Chamundi Textiles (Silk Mills) Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 193 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - Appeal partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim based on the date of input invoices and payment.
2. Rejection of refund claim due to invoices not being in the name of the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of refund claims by M/s Kolektor Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. The rejection was based on the grounds that the input invoices were dated prior to the claimed period and the payments to input service providers were also made before the claimed period. The Tribunal referred to a previous case (CCE Vs. Chamundi Textiles) where it was held that there is no bar in allowing the refund of Cenvat credit pertaining to a period prior to the refund period claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal relied on a Circular by CBEC that supported the quarterly filing of refund claims without any objection, allowing refunds for past periods in subsequent quarters. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the refund claim amount of Rs.1,35,893.

2. Another part of the refund claim amounting to Rs.8,676 was rejected as the invoices were not in the name of the appellant but in the name of M/s Niranjan Seshadri. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision to deny the refund for the Cenvat credit related to these invoices since they were not in the name of the appellant. Therefore, this portion of the refund claim was rightly rejected, and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue were upheld. The appeal was partly allowed, with the refund claim amount of Rs.1,35,893 being granted while the claim of Rs.8,676 was denied due to the invoices not being in the name of the appellant.