9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhary These appeals by the appellant, M/s Sitel India Ltd., arise out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/150 to 152/MII/2010 dated 10.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is an exporter of service and had unutilized CENVAT Credit in their account and accordingly applied for refund of Rs. 46,04,033/- under Rule 5 of Cenvat Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported. The appellant contested the show-cause notice by filing reply stating that the provisions of Section 11B as regards limitation is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. At best limitation will be one year from date of duty payment under Section 11B(5)(b)(f). The show-cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 17.11.2008 rejecting the claim holding that li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. The appellant states that the issue of limitation is no longer res integra and the same is decided in favour of the assessee in the ruling of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of m Portal India wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 2011 (9) TMI 450 (Kar), which has been followed by Division Bench of this Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d rule provides for refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit due to reasons of export of service, and being unable to be utilized by the assessee. Further, under the said rule, no time limit is prescribed and hence, no limitation is applicable. Thus, the ground of limitation is decided in favour of the appellant and it is held that the claim of refund is not hit by limitation. 5.1 As regards the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
