9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.: ST/760-761/2011-SM - ORDER No. A/10400 10401/2014 - Dated:- 20-3-2014 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, J. For the Appellant : Smt. Arti N. Shah (C.A.) For the Respondent : Shri M. Kutty (A.R.) JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran; These two applications are being disposed of by a common order as issue raised is the same and in respect of the very same assessee. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein filed two refund claims vide letters dt. 03.11.2010 and 18.02.2011 under the provisions of notification no.05/2006-CE(NT) dt. 14.03.2006 as amended from time to time, for refund of unutilized Cenvat Credit. The lower authorities issued show cause notice for rejecting such refund claims a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as much as there is no dispute as to the fact that appellant was exporting the entire services and hence there is no local turnover for calculating the total turnover. It is her submission that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of Rs.57,760/- and Rs.40,414/- be set aside and their appeals be allowed. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand would submit that the issue involved in this case is whether the refund claims filed by the appellant are within time as per notification no.05/2006-CE(NT) or not and also whether the total turnover needs to be reworked out. It is his submission that the issue of limitation now stands decided by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Coimbator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lower authorities holding the same as hit by limitation is correct as per the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with notification No.05/2006-CE(NT). 8. The undisputed facts are the appellants are eligible for refund of the amounts as has been filed by him which were partially allowed and partially rejected. 9. I find strong force in submissions made by the Ld. Departmental Representative in as much as, the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Coimbatore Vs. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. - 2012 (28) STR 426 (Mad.) specifically in paragraph nos.14, 15 and 16 has held as under: 14. The said notification prescribes a period of one year, as provided under section 11B of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke a claim of refund of CENVAT credit. Admittedly, the respondent has made a claim only invoking Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any difficulty for us to hold that the relevant date should be the date on which the export of the goods was made and for such goods, refund of CENVAT credit is claimed. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent would rely upon a judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 413 (Guj.) [Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I v. Swagat Synthetics]. That was a case relating to sub-rule (13) of Rule 57F of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which reads as under: (13) Where any inputs are used in the final products which are cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
