Tribunal Upholds Orders-in-Appeal on Cenvat Credit Refund for Exporters

The Tribunal upheld the Orders-in-Appeal, rejecting the revenue's appeals against refund claims of Cenvat Credit paid on input services by a 100% EoU. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, the Tribunal held that the limitation period under Section 11B did not apply to refund accumulated Cenvat credit for exporters of non-taxable services. The decision was based on the precedence of following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in case of conflicting views among High Courts. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, and the Orders-in-Appeal were upheld.

---

---

Issues:
- Refund claim of Cenvat Credit paid on input services
- Time limitation for filing refund claims
- Applicability of High Court judgments on refund claims
- Conflict between High Court judgments
- Jurisdictional High Court's judgment precedence

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the revenue against Orders-in-Appeal rejecting the refund claims as time-barred. The respondents, a 100% EoU engaged in manufacturing and exporting goods, filed a refund claim of Cenvat Credit paid on input services. The first adjudicating authority reversed the rejection, citing a High Court judgment and held the appellant eligible for a refund. The revenue heavily relied on a different High Court judgment, arguing the refund claims were beyond the limitation period under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The CA for the respondent emphasized the jurisdictional High Court's judgment's applicability over conflicting judgments. The Tribunal considered the High Court's judgment in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which stated that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit, especially for a 100% EoU exporting non-taxable services. The Tribunal noted that the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court must be followed in case of conflicting views among High Courts, as per the precedent set by a larger Bench.

Given the later judgment by the jurisdictional High Court and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal upheld the Orders-in-Appeal, stating that the impugned orders were legally sound and did not require any changes. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, and the impugned orders were upheld. The decision was pronounced in Open Court on 27.09.2017.

---