2017 (2) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....BM sanction order dated 11.6.2004. The appellants availed CENVAT credit of excise duty paid on their input and service tax paid on their input services. Appellant availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services viz., general insurance, canteen service and group medical and health insurance service. The appellant filed a refund application for Rs. 21,06,241/- based on the Orders-in-Appeal No.380-381/2012 CE for the period April 2007 to September 2008. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund on some input services in the original adjudicating proceedings. Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (A) who passed order giving partial relief and remanded the case back to the original adjudicating authority. The adj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has wrongly held that there should be more than 250 employees for availing the CENVAT credit on canteen services. He also submitted that now by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court has held that there is no necessity of having 250 employees for claiming CENVAT credit on canteen services. Therefore, I hold that canteen services fall in the definition of input service and the appellant is entitled to claim refund of CENVAT credit in respect of outdoor catering services. Further, the appellant is situated at a remote area in the industrial estate and therefore, it is all the more important to provide the canteen facilities to the employees. He also submitted that as per the Board s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of mPortal Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2011-TIOL-928-HC-KAR held that insofar as refund of CENVAT credit is concerned, the limitation under Section 11B does not apply for accumulated CENVAT credit. Therefore, the bar of limitation cannot be a ground to reject CENVAT credit to the assessee. Learned counsel submitted that the time period prescribed in Section 11B for claiming refund of unutilized CENVAT credit does not apply to the refund claim under Rule 5. In reply to this, the learned AR submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd.: 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) and subsequently clarified by the Hon ble Supreme Co....