TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remanded the matter with a direction to the original authority to reconsider the refund claims filed by the assessee and to pass the orders on merits. 2. Since the issue in all these six appeals is identical, therefore, all these six appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of the appeals are given below: Sl. No. Appeal No. OIA No. Period Refund claim 1. E/25472/2013 No.378/2012 dt.15.11.2012 July to Sep. 2009 Rs.17,33,716/- 2. E/27448/2013 No.368 & 369/2012 dt. 14.11.2012 -do- Rs.11,29,030/- 3. E/27448/2013 -do- Oct. - Dec. 2009 Rs.9,28,432/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted CENVAT credit. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (A), the Department has filed these appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (A) are not sustainable in law as the same has been passed based on the decisions which are not applicable in the present case. He further submitted that the case law relating to M/s. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. vs. CCE, Coimbatore reported in 2010 (259) ELT 625 (Tri.- Chennai) relied upon by the appellate authority has already been set aside on 25.8.2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in an appeal filed against the said order as reported in 2012 (281) ELT 185 (Mad.-HC). He furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present case. He further submitted that Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 and Notification No.5/2006-CE are common for goods exporters and service exporters and the facility to 100% EOU to file the refund claim on quarterly basis is available to both the goods exporters and service exporters. He further submitted that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. M/s. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd.: 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT Bangalore has held that the relevant date for determining one year time limit under Section 11B is specified clearly in respect of export of goods and has gone ahead with the determination of the relevant date for export of services. The Larger Bench has proceeded on the basis that the definition of relevant date is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of goods, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. cited supra has considered the issue of limitation as prescribed under Section 11B for claiming the refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. It was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that the Notification prescribed a period of one year as provided under Section 11B for making the application for refund. The Hon'ble High Court recorded that though no specific relevant date is prescribed in the Notification, "the relevant date must be the date on which the final products are cleared for export". If any other conclusion is arrived, it will result in disentitling any person to make a claim for CENVAT credit. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court held that time pe....