TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration the assessee respondent had filed an application for refund of the amount of Cenvat Credit lying unutilized during the July to September, 2012 under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit rules 2004 (CCR) read with notification no. 27/2012-CE (NT). The adjudication authority rejected the refund claim of Rs. 27,85,000/- while sanctioning an amount of Rs. 50,33,083/-. Aggrieved by such an order an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal of the assessee and sanctioned the refund claim to further extent of Rs. 29,79,038/-. Revenue is aggrieved by such an order and they are before the tribunal. At the outset, the cross objection which is filed being in support of order-in-appeal, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....took me through two rules, rule 5 and rule 6A. He would submit that the judgment of the tribunal in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (34) S.T.R. 437, records about non applicability of section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. He produces a statement along with copy of details of export made, FIRCS and indicates that these have been considered by the first appellate authority while passing the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue in brief is the appellant herein is exporter of services "Consulting Engineering Services" to their customers situated outside India during the relevant period in question. It is undisputed that the appellant had exported e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch are yet to be provided completely. By virtue of the provision in the new Rule 5 that the amended provisions shall apply to export made on or after the 1 st April, 2012, the export of services made before 01-04-2012 but payments received after introduction of new Rule 5 of the CCR. Secondly, by virtue of the first proviso to sub-Rule (2) of new Rule 5 of the CCR, refund under the old Rule 5 could be claimed upto one year of commencement of the new Rule 5, i.e. upto 31-03-2013. The services exported upto 31.03.2012 are governed by old Rule 5 of the CCR and hence refund of CENVAT Credit in respect of the same should have been, and would have been, granted put 31-03-2013. This is because the services exported before 01-04-2012, but for which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the payments received during the relevant quarter for the services exported during the relevant quarter =NIL (b) Against which the payments totaling Rs. 4,86,32,973/- were received during the relevant quarter for the services already exported, as given below: S.No. FIRC Date FIRC No. Date of Receipt of FIRC FRIC Amount (Rs.) Remark 1 17.8.12 114892 17.8.12 7880873 Part receipt for April, 12 2 29.8.12 115230 29.8.12 8214000 Part receipt for April, 12 3 11.9.12 115644 11.9.12 5461000 Part receipt for April, 12 4 18.9.12 115911 18.9.12 16050000 Part receipt for April, 12 & May, 12 5 27.9.12 116309 27.9.12 11027100 Part receipt ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the 'Export Turnover' would be equal to the "Total Turnover" in terms of clause (E) of Rule 5(1) of the CCR. In view of the above discussions, I find that the admissible refund amount needs to be re-calculated. The same is done aas under: Export turnover of services + Rs. 4,86,32,973/- Total Turnover = Rs. 4,86,32,973/- Net CENVAT Credit = Rs. 45,12,121/- (48,18,805/- Minus 3,06,684/-) Refund amount = Export turnover of services X Net Cenvat credit Total turnover Refund = 48632973 X 4512121/- = 4512121/- amount 48632973/- Since refund of Rs. 15,33,083/- has already been granted vide the impugned Order-in-Original, the appellant are found entitled to further refund of Rs. 29,79,038/- (Rs.45,12,121/- minus ....