9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 887 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilised CENVAT credit - time limitation u/s 11-B of CEA, 1944 - Held that - The jurisdiction of Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Hyundai Motor India Engineering (P) Ltd 2015 (3) TMI 1049 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT has held that refund claim has to be filed within one year of date of receipt of consideration - In view of this, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh would apply in the case in hand - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Applicability of limitation under section 11-B of Central Excise Act, 1944 for refund applications. 2. Interpretation of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a specific case. 3. Consideration of bank realisation certificate for refund claims. 4. Jurisdictional application of High Court decisions on refund claims. 5. Disposal of appeals challenging the Order-in-Appeal. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-EXCUS-004-APP-0247-15-16-ST, contesting the applicability of limitation under section 11-B of Central Excise Act, 1944 for refund applications. The appellant claimed that the limitation prescribed is not applicable to their refund applications filed on 04.02.2014. The first appellate authority had held that the rejection of refund claims beyond one year from the date of realisation of export services is unsustainable based on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a specific case. The appellant's argument based on a different High Court decision was deemed misplaced, leading to the rejection of the appeals. 2. The interpretation of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a specific case was a crucial aspect of the dispute. The appellant argued that this decision should apply to their case, but the Tribunal found that the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh had settled the law regarding the timeframe for filing refund claims. The Tribunal concluded that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court would be applicable in the present case, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the impugned order. 3. The consideration of bank realisation certificate for refund claims was highlighted in the case. The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim due to non-compliance with producing bank realisation certificate for a specific period. However, the first appellate authority held that the rejection of refund claims based on the timeframe was unsustainable, emphasizing the importance of the date of realisation of export services in determining the eligibility for refund claims. 4. The Tribunal addressed the jurisdictional application of High Court decisions on refund claims. It was emphasized that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh regarding the timeframe for filing refund claims would be applicable in the case at hand. Both the appellant and the Revenue challenged the impugned order based on different High Court decisions, but the Tribunal clarified that the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision would govern the matter. 5. Finally, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue, rejecting them based on the application of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision on refund claims. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals lacked merit in challenging the impugned order, thereby upholding the decision regarding the limitation period for filing refund claims based on the date of receipt of consideration as per the High Court's ruling.
|
