Accumulated CENVAT credit refund allowed after FIRC verification, Rule 2(l) compliance not required under Section 11B

CESTAT Mumbai allowed appeals regarding refund of accumulated CENVAT credit. The original authority denied refund claiming limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed refund but rejected claims for January-March 2014 period due to non-submission of FIRC details. CESTAT found appellants had stated receipt of foreign currency consideration and annexed proof in their application. Matter remanded to original authority for FIRC verification and refund consideration. CESTAT held refund benefit not subject to Rule 2(l) compliance and nexus establishment under Rule 5 not required.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the denial of refund claims by the original authority, rejection of refund benefit for a specific period due to non-submission of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs), and rejection of refund claims based on the establishment of nexus between input and output services.

Denial of Refund Claims by Original Authority:
The appellants, engaged in providing output services, filed refund applications under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, claiming refund of accumulated cenvat credit. The original authority partly sanctioned the refund claims and denied the benefit for certain input services. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund benefit for some input services but denied it for a specific amount, citing non-submission of FIRC details and lack of nexus between input and output services. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal against the impugned orders.

Rejection of Refund Benefit for Specific Period:
The original authority denied the benefit of refund on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) negated the original order, stating that the relevant date for limitation would be the date of receipt of payment in foreign exchange or the date of invoice issue. The Commissioner partly allowed the refund benefit but rejected it for a specific period due to non-submission of FIRCs. The Tribunal found that the appellants had submitted proof of payment in foreign currency and remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of documents.

Rejection of Refund Claims Based on Nexus Between Input and Output Services:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected refund claims on the ground that disputed services did not qualify as 'input service' and lacked nexus with output services. The Tribunal noted that the department did not question the cenvat credit availed by the appellants, and Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, does not require the establishment of nexus for refund. Refund under Rule 5 is based on a prescribed formula, and denial on the grounds of nexus was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal referred to a Circular clarifying the refund process and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the grant of refund benefit is not subject to compliance with provisions related to nexus.

Separate Judgment:
The Tribunal, comprising Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty and Hon'ble Mr. M.M. Parthiban, pronounced the judgment on 09.11.2023. The appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellants based on the findings related to denial of refund claims by the original authority and rejection of refund claims based on the establishment of nexus between input and output services.

---