2015 (6) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd others passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Pune-III wherein he has upheld the total/partial disallowance of refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground of limitation. The details of the refund claim are as under: - Appeal No. of Tribunal Period OIA NO.  Amount Claimed  Amount Sanctioned  Amount Disallowed ST/698/11 May to June, 2008 P-III/RS/265/011 dt. 22.9.2011   22,390 22,390 ST/699/11 July to Sept, 2008 P-III/RS/266/2011 dt. 22.9.2011       50,160       50,160 ST/700/11 Oct to Dec, 2008 P-III/RS/267/2011 dt. 22.9.2011     131,541 131,541 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ferred appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Before this Tribunal, the only ground, the appellant has raised is regarding rejection of his claim on the ground of limitation. The appellant states that no limitation is applicable in the case of refund of CENVAT Credit on account of export. He further relies on the ruling of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax  2011 (9) TMI 450-KHC wherein by order dated 23.9.2011, the Hon'ble High Court held that limitation under Section 11B does not apply to refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit. Therefore, bar of limitation cannot be a ground to refuse refund of CENVAT Credit to the assessee. Following the ruling o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant further relies on the ruling of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of S.T.I. India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise  2009 (236) ELT 248, wherein refund was preferred under clause 6 of appendix to Notification issued under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was held that the provision is procedural in nature and not mandatory, hence merely because the refund application is not strictly filed within specified period, read with Section 11B, could not have been made the sole ground of rejection. It was also held that the claim of refund under  Rule 57F did not strictly fall within the four corners of Section 11B, but it essentially fall under clause 6 of appendix to Notification under Rule....