9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1056 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim of accumulated CENVAT Credit - 100% EOU - export of services - period of limitation - Held that - as notification 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 specifically mentions that the time limit mentioned under Section 11B would be applicable for refund of CENVAT credit. The next factor to be considered would be the relevant date for computing the time-limit prescribed under Section 11B for this aspect, we find force in the submission of the learned Counsel that the date of export invoice should be treated as the relevant date. The time limit of one year prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act would be computed from this date and refund claims submitted within the said time limit of one year from the said date would be eligible for refund. We find fort for our view from the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of GTN Engineering (I) Limited vs. CCE, Coimbatore read with the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE. & Cus., Surat vs. Swagat Synthetics (2008 (7) TMI 208 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT ) and the Tribunal decision in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Limited and Others vs. Commissioner of Customs, CCE & ST, Bangalore (2015 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE). A careful and harmonious reading of these decisions would reveal that CENVAT credit though not a duty, by making Section 11B applicable to refund of CENVAT credit, CENVAT credit has been equated with duty, by way of Notification No. 27/2012 dated 18.06.2012. Therefore, the time limit would be as prescribed in Section 11B. However, as per the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court the relevant date would be the date when the cause for refund has arisen, and this would obviously be when the export has taken place, as is also held by this Tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt. Limited (supra) - we modify the orders of the lower authorities to the extent to hold that the refund claims filed within one year of export invoice would not be hit by the mischief of time-bar - Appeal disposed of.
Issues involved:
Relevant date for time-limit for filing refund claim in respect of CENVAT credit accumulated as a result of services exported. Analysis: The appellant, a 100% EOU, sought a refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on input and input services due to exporting entire services. Revenue rejected their claims for being filed after the one-year time-limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that Section 11B is not applicable to CENVAT credit refunds, citing Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules without a time-limit. They contended that refund claims were filed within one year of the relevant quarter-end or the date of export invoice. The appellant relied on legal precedents, including a Gujarat High Court decision and a Tribunal case. The Revenue representative argued that Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) specifies Section 11B's time-limit for CENVAT credit refunds, supported by a Madras High Court decision. The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that Notification 27/2012-CE (NT) explicitly links Section 11B's time-limit to CENVAT credit refunds. The relevant date for the time-limit was determined as the date of the export invoice, aligning with the appellant's submission. The Tribunal harmonized the Madras High Court decision, the Gujarat High Court decision, and a Tribunal case to equate CENVAT credit with duty under Section 11B. Therefore, while CENVAT credit is not a duty, it is treated as such for time-limit purposes by Notification 27/2012. The Tribunal held that refund claims filed within one year of the export invoice are eligible for refund, modifying lower authorities' orders accordingly. In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal to allow refund claims filed within one year of the export invoice, bypassing the time-bar issue. The adjudicating authority was instructed to recalculate the appellants' refund claims based on this decision. Both appeals were disposed of under these terms.
|
