2017 (6) TMI 110 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, grants refund for disallowed Cenvat credit.

M/s Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the disallowance of Cenvat credit was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The appellant, a 100% EOU, ... 100% EOU - Refund of CENVAT credit - denial on account of time limitation - Held that: - the said issue stands settled by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Balkrishna Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd [2016 (6) TMI 354 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein it has been held that when the statute does not provide limitation, no limitation can be read therein - the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit. The amount of Cenvat credit disallowed, is bad and beyond the scope of show cause notice - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. Issues:1. Disallowance of refund claim of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE.Analysis:The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing auto mobile components, filed refund claims for Cenvat credit of service tax paid for services utilized in manufacturing final products and exported under bond. The first issue raised was regarding the eligibility of the refund claim based on limitation under Clause 6 of Notification No.5/2006 CE. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CCE Vs Balkrishna Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd, stating that when the statute does not provide a limitation, no limitation can be imposed. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Ltd held that limitations cannot be inserted through subordinate legislation. Additionally, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST clarified that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of Cenvat credit was beyond the scope of the show cause notice, and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits. The adjudicating authority was directed to disburse the remaining refund amount within 45 days from the receipt of the order, along with applicable interest.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the legal principles applied by the Tribunal in reaching its decision.