2017 (11) TMI 881

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10 for refund of Rs. 4,70,762/- being the unutilised input service credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and Notification No.5/2006-CE NT dt. 14/03/2006 on such input services for the period April to June 2009. The said claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vide Order-in-original No.807/2001 dt. 18/11/2011 on the ground that they have filed the refund claim beyond period of one year from which they exported their final products i.e. bearing equipment and mechanical parts to be fitted into aero jets engines to their clients abroad and as per Notification No.5/2006-CE NT, the refund claim under Rule 5 of CR is to be filed before the expiry of one year. The Assistant Commissioner further held that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has given detailed reasons and has also relied upon the decisions of the Madras High Court in the case of GTN Engineering (I) Ltd.(supra) and CCE Vs. Celebrity Designs India [2015(321) ELT 221 (Mad.)]. He further submitted that as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the refund claim has to be filed within a period of one year from the relevant date and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in GTN Engineering case has held that in case of refund of accumulated credit, the limitation of Section 11B would be applicable and the date of export of goods shall be the relevant date for arriving at the date of limitation. The relevant para of the Madras High Court decision in....