2017 (4) TMI 898

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....STAT Procedure Rules, the appellant had to file 4 sets of appeals corresponding to 4 separate orders in original. But only one set of appeal book is filed. That during the relevant period when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, Bangalore, a Circular was issued by the Registry that due to scarcity of space separate appeals may be filed in one paper book. The Registry ought to have given four appeal numbers. But only single appeal number was given for the 4 set of appeals filed in one Paper Book. This is seen from the covering letter dated 28.04.2014 filed by the appellant along with appeal paper book. I therefore hold that there is no procedural irregularity on the side of the appellant and the single paper book filed in accordance ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that, the issue whether registration is pre-requisite for refund is settled by the judgment in the case of M/s. Mportal India Wireless Solution P. Ltd V/s CST, Bangalore [2012 (27) STR 134 (kar.)] and M/s. Spandana Spoorthy Financial Ltd., V/s CCE & ST, Hyd-IV [2016 (45) STR 265 (Tri. Hyd.)]. With regard to the issue of time bar he submitted that Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not lay down any time limit for filing refund claim. The time limit for filing refund claim is mentioned in Notification No.27/2012-CE (N) dated 18.06.2012 and Notification No.5/2006 CE (NT) dated 14.03.2006. In these notifications it is stated that the refund claim may be filed before the expiry of the period under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his ground is right and proper. With regard to arguments put forward by Ld. Counsel regarding the rejection of refund claim on being time barred, the Ld. AR submitted that relevant Notification 5/2006 as well as 27/2012 stipulates that the refund claim has to be filed before expiry of period specified under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. As per Section 11B of C.E Act, 1944, the period prescribed is one year. Since services have been exported the relevant date has to be computed from the date of export of services. In such circumstances, the refund claim filed beyond 1 year for the quarter April, 2012 to June, 2012. has been rightly rejected as time barred. He relied upon the judgment in CCE V/s GTN Engineering Ltd [2012 ELT 185) (....