9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR For the Respondent ORDER Appellant has filed three appeals. In all the three appeals, the issue involved is identical. Therefore all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. With regard to Appeal No. E/27947/2013 and Appeal No. E/27352/2013 they arise out of the common impugned order dated 22.07.2013 and Appeal No. E/27953/2013 arises out of the impugned order dated 24.07.2013 wherein by the impugned order cenvat credit refund on limitation (01.01.2010 to 22.03.2010 has been denied on time-bar). The details of the appeals are as under: Sl. No. Appeal No. Period involved Order-in-Original No. Refund Amount involved (Rs.) 1 E/27947/2013 July 2010 to September 2010 08/2012 dated 24.01.2012 12,34,983/- 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the issue of limitation under Section 11B does not apply for the issues relating to refund of accumulated cenvat credit and in support of this submission he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore [2011-TIOL-928-HC-KAR-ST] wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically held as "in so far as refund of cenvat credit is concerned, the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for accumulated cenvat credit." 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the jurisdictional First Appellate Authority in his Order-in-Appeal No. 378/2012 CE dated 15.11.2012, in the case of the appellant M/s. Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore relying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in 2014-TIOL-1836-CESTAT-BANG. held that the date of receipt of consideration has to be taken into account for calculating the limitation period of one year. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that a decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indago Vs. CST reported in 2016-TIOL-1020-CESTAT-MUM. wherein the Tribunal has held that the period of one year should be computed from the date FIRC was received. 5. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that as per Section 11B read with Notification 5/2006 CE dated 14.03.2006, the refund claim should be filed within a period of one year from the date of export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
