2015 (3) TMI 1049

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....suggested question of law: 1. "Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the assessee was within time in claiming refund without discussing the Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 relevant for refunds under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No.05/2006-CE(NT), dated 14.03.2006 and merely relying on the decision of Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of CCE, Pune -I Vs. Eaton Industries Pvt. Ltd., [2011 (22) STR 223 (Tri-Mumbai)]? 2. Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that the assessee is eligible to claim refund of CENVAT credit on construction service relying on case of Infosys Ltd. (2014-TIOL-409-CESTATBANG)? 3. Whether the Tribunal is correct in remanding the matter with regard to the claim of refund of CE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed. Three points were formulated by the learned CESTAT which are as follows: i . "Whether relevant date specified under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is relevant for refunds under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.05/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006? ii. Eligibility of services as input services for grant of refund. iii. Whether CENVAT credit availed on the input services before payments for the services received?" 3. It appears the learned CESTAT decided the first issue relying on the judgment of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Pune -I v. Eaton Industries P. Ltd. 2011 (22) S.T.R. 223 (Tri.- Mumbai) to hold that the relevant date for calculating the time limit for grant of r....