TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR) in respect of service tax paid on clearing and forwarding inward charges and transportation employees services and held that the appellant is not eligible for refund in respect of service tax paid on calibration charges, catering services, freight inward, freight outward. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are 100% EOU holding public bonded warehouse license under Section 58 and in-bond manufacture sanction order under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 for manufacture and export of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Appellant filed refund claim with the adjudicating authority seeking refund of accumulated u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e refund on certain input services and also on time bar is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly rejected the refund of Rs. 1,82,355/- as time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006. He further submitted that in the case of refund under Rule 5, no time limit is prescribed and Section 11B is not applicable, if the refund claim is that of accumulated credit. He further submitted that the refund has been denied in respect of few input services which are directly related with the manufacturing process. 4.1 As far as calibration charges are concerned, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the rejection of refund to the extent of Rs. 1,82,355/- on time bar is valid and the learned Commissioner (A) by relying on Section 11B and Explanation B(a)(i) which provides a period of one year from the date on which the ship or the aircraft of such goods are loaded, leaves India and in the present case, the original authority has rejected the partial claim since the same has been filed beyond one year from the date of export of the impugned goods. 6.1 With regard to input services viz., calibration charges since the appellant has not produced the doc....