TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Cochin SEZ and are engaged in rendering Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services which are substantially exported. The appellant received various input services like manpower supply service, telephone service, security service, catering service, courier service, scientific and technical consultancy service to provide their output service and availed CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on these input services. Since the appellant is engaged in the export of service, there is a huge accumulated CENVAT credit of tax paid on input services. Consequently, the appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with Notification No.5/2006 dated 14.3.2006 in respect of unutilized CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation dated 5.9.2012 before the same authority seeking payment of said refund amount as ordered by the Commissioner (A) and for the interest amount under Section 11BB. Since no response was received by the appellant, the appellant approached the Ombudsman (Indirect Taxes, Bangalore) vide a complaint dated 25.3.2013. In response to the said complaint, Ombudsman informed the appellant that the matter has been referred to the Service Tax Commissioner and they will revert to the appellant as soon as they hear from them. Thereafter, on 24.7.2013, appellant informed the Ombudsman regarding the department's stay application dismissed by the Tribunal vide Misc. Order dated 13.3.2013. It was also informed that the dispute regarding granting of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment would only be applicable when the assessee has either paid duty in cash or has utilized the CENVAT credit for discharge of such duty or tax and further the interest payment would be applicable only for the refund claims which are filed without any deficiencies. Aggrieved by the said communication, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who has now passed the impugned order on the ground that the refund claim in service tax is to be considered as nothing more than a facilitating mechanism which is provided to the exporter to convert the unutilized credit lying in their account. Since this unutilized credit is always lying with the exporter and not with the Government, hence the refund of this unutilized credit is merely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs. UOI: 2007 (5) STR 177 wherein it was held that once an order has attained finality, in the absence of any appeal, the Revenue cannot initiate fresh proceedings but has to implement the order. He further submitted that the appellant is eligible for interest on delayed refund of unutilized credit and that refund should have been sanctioned within three months from the date of refund application. In the present case, the appellant has been granted refund much after the expiry of three months. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions: • *ama Vision v. CCE, reported at 2004 (170) ELT 13 (T-LB); • ommissioner of Central Excise v. Reliance Industries Ltd., reported at 2010 (259) E.L.T.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the various judgments relied upon by the appellant to claim interest for the delay in sanctioning the refund amount beyond the period of three months from the date of filing of refund claim. This issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal; the High Court and the Supreme Court. 6.1 Further, I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laborites cited supra has categorically held that the appellant is entitled to interest after the expiry of three months from the date of filing the refund application till the refund ....