TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant. Against the impugned order, the Department has also filed an appeal against the findings of the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has held that as per the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST: 2012 (27) STR 134 (Kar.) wherein it has been held that limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would not be applicable to refund claims filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Since all the appeals arising out of the common impugned order and relates to identical issue, therefore, all the six appeals of the assessee and one appeal of the Department are disposed of by this co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remaining 4 claims on grounds of not submitting the required documents for verification. On Appeal, the ld Commissioner (Appeals-I), Bangalore has passed common Order-in-Appeal No 82-88/2015-CE dated 25.02.2015 holding that the limitation under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 is not applicable for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit, but rejected the Appeals on the grounds that replies to the SCNs were not furnished along with the required documents. The details of the Appeals before the Tribunal and amounts claimed in refund and period involved are given below: (Amount in Rs.) Appeal No Order-in-Original No/Date Amount Period of claim for refund E/21231/15 OIO No.114/2013-14 R dt 19.03.2014 70,74,034/- April 2012 to June 12 E/21230/1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awing Appeal No E/21230/2015 & E/21231/2015 and the appellants have intimated the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes, West Division, of this fact vide letter Ref Promac/Excise Refund/2017-18/286 dated 14th July 2017, a copy of which is enclosed with his written submissions. Therefore, the appellant has prayed that these two appeals may be ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, we allow the prayer of the appellant with regard to these two appeals cited supra and dismiss these two appeals as withdrawn. With regard to remaining four appeals shown in the table above, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had submited the following documents to the ACCE along with the refund claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....required documents. He further submitted that in paragraph 16 of the Order-in-Original, the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellants have not produced the evidence of the debit of the amounts claimed as refund in the CENVAT account, which is factually incorrect whereas the appellants have submitted consolidated worksheet for the CENVAT credit taken and claimed in refund in respect of these six appeals and the copy of the same is also enclosed in appeal No. E/21227/2015 and the perusal of the same shows that the amount of CENVAT credit claimed in refund has been debited in each case. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has not considered the voluminous documents submitted by the appellant and in case, any furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. reported in 2010 (259) ELT 356 (Guj.) has held that any refund ordered under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, would be a refund made under subsection (2) of Section 11B of the Act and an appeal against the High Court order was filed in the apex court and the same was dismissed. This submission of the learned AR has force and we are of the view that limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is applicable for refund claim filed under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to that extent, the department s appeal succeeds and we allow the department s appeal and set aside the findings of the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. 7. After considering the submissions of both the....