2017 (1) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s with the service tax department and are availing the facility of CENVAT Credit on input services for providing the output services.  As the output services are exported by the appellant they filed application for refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006.  The details of the period involved, the amount of refund claimed, and the reason for rejection as put forward by the appellant is shown in the table below: Appeal No. Party Period Claim Amount (Rs.) Rejected in O-I-O Rejected in O-I-A Issue in dispute Before CESTAT Remarks ST/28207/2013 Deloitte & Touche Assurance & Enterprise Risk Services India Pvt. Ltd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....im Rejection of refund claim on the ground that it is hit by limitation pertaining to Export invoice No. DFAS/FY12/008 dt. 07.01.2012 and thus time barred   For earlier period Jan'11 to Mar'11 vide Final Order 25497/2013 dt. 09.07.2013 the Hon'ble CESTAT Bangalore Bench has remanded back to original authority for verification. Denovo proceeding is under process. 3.  On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. S. Tirumalai submitted that in appeal ST/28207/2013 and ST/28210/2013 the refund has been rejected on the ground that the claim is hit by limitation.  He submitted that the authorities below had computed the period from the date of export of services and thus held that the refund claim is time barred.&....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the contention made by the appellant, that registration is not mandatory condition for availing credit, he submitted that the appellant is not eligible to avail credit on the invoices issued to the un-registered premises at Meenakshi Tech Park.  He relied upon the decision in M/s Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Vs CCE, Mangalore [2013 (30) STR 475 (Tri.-Bang)] and argued that if the appellant had more than one premise the appellant ought to have taken ISD registration and taken the credits availed by the different units. 5.  I have heard both sides.  In appeal ST/28207/2013 and ST/28210/2013 the authorities below have held that the refund claims are time barred.  The period has been computed by the authorites bel....