Rule 5 refund for exported services upheld, with limitation governed by the Cenvat Credit Rules, not Section 11B.

Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit for exported services was held admissible under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 because the services were rendered to customers outside India and the credit related to input services used for those exports. The appellate authority correctly applied the Rule 5 formula, excluded non-eligible receipts from export turnover, and recalculated the refund accordingly. The claim was also held not to be governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because Rule 5 itself prescribed the relevant limitation and conditions. The further refund granted in appeal was therefore upheld and the limitation objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of unutilised Cenvat credit was admissible under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for services exported during the relevant quarter. (ii) Whether the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governed the refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether refund of unutilised Cenvat credit was admissible under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for services exported during the relevant quarter.

Analysis: The exported services were found to have been rendered to customers outside India, and the credit had been taken on input services used for such exports. The first appellate authority correctly applied the formula under Rule 5, distinguished receipts relatable to services exported during the relevant quarter from receipts not eligible for inclusion in export turnover, and recalculated the admissible refund on that basis.

Conclusion: The refund of unutilised Cenvat credit was admissible, and the assessee was entitled to the further amount granted in appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governed the refund claim.

Analysis: The refund claim arose under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which itself provides the relevant time limit for filing the claim. The claim was therefore not to be tested under Section 11B, and the appellate authority's view on limitation was sustained.

Conclusion: Section 11B did not govern the refund claim, and the objection on limitation failed.

Final Conclusion: The order granting the assessee further refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under Rule 5 was upheld, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for unutilised Cenvat credit relating to export of services is governed by Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and not by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the rule itself prescribes the applicable limitation and conditions.

---