TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012 under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of accumulated credit of service tax paid on taxable input service on the ground that such services were received in providing export output service, which has been exported. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund of Rs. 3,43,86,025/-, vide order-in-original. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the grant of refund on merits as well as on the ground of time bar. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,92,64,976/- along with interest. Therefore, the appellants are before us. 2. Shri Srikant Balakrishnan, Ld. CA appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. He submits that in the case of GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. 2012 (28) STR 426 (Mad) referred in the order-in-appeal it was held by the Hon'ble by the Madras High Court that time limit of one year is applicable from the date of export and it is not from the date of receipt of input services. In this regard, he submits that in the present case the appellant filed a refund for the period 16/05/2008 to 31/03/2010 filed on 24/04/2012, which is in fact within one year from the date of first export during that period which is 30/04/2011. Therefore, there is no question of refund being time barred. He further submits that it is a fit case for remand as para 13.1 of the order-in-original. Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt made during the relevant period. Therefore, the refund is not admissible. He further submits that the refund of Cenvat Credit for the period 16/05/2008 to 31/03/2010 was claimed on 24/04/2012, which is clearly time barred as the same was filed after one year from the relevant period. Therefore, the refund is rightly rejected on the ground of time bar also. He referred to the decision of Madras High Court in the case of GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. - 2012 (28) STR 426 (Mad). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that admittedly the Cenvat Credit, which was accumulated is in respect of the input received during the period 16/05/2008 to 31/03/2010 for which the refund claim was filed on 24/04/2012. From ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the appellant failed to comply. Therefore, refund is admissible only for a period for one year prior to 24/04/2012 attributed to export made during that period. As regards the judgement relied upon by the appellant, on careful reading of the said decision, we find that in case of Ionnor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we find that in the said case there was no dispute about the filing of claim within the time the issue was only that particular input service was not utilized in the export service, which is not the case here. We are of the view that there is no one to one co-relation but the refund is required to be filed within one year from the export. In the present case, the appellants have been exporting regularly right from the begi....