2018 (7) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant availed CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on 'input services' used for exportation of the 'output services'. Since the appellant exported the entire output services, there was no scope for utilization of CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on the input services. Therefore, the appellant claims refund of service tax paid by it on the input services, in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with the notification issued by the Government of India. In the present case, the appellant had filed two numbers of refund applications, claiming refund of service tax paid by it during the quarter / period from October 2014 to December 2014 and January 2015 to March 2015. The said refund applications were electronically filed before ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g of the relied upon documents subsequently, the Learned Advocate has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I v. Arya Exports and Industries - 2005 (192) ELT 89 (Del.). 4. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for Revenue reiterates the finding recorded in the impugned order. He further submits that since the Notification dated 18.06.2012 read with Section 11B ibid clearly prescribes the time limitation for filing the refund applications, the same cannot be ignored and supporting documents based on which the refund applications were adjudicated by the department should be considered as proper and relevant for consideration of the period of limitation. Thus, he c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y should be considered for the purpose for determination of the limitation period. The relevant paragraphs in the said judgement are extracted herein below:- "4. Before parting with the file we may also notice here that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 17th July, 2001 does not suffer from any patent, legal or other infirmity. The assessee had filed an application under Rule 57F(4) for refund of the excise duty wrongfully recovered from him. This application was declined on the ground that it was not made in the prescribed form and necessary documents were not annexed thereto. Thereafter another application was filed by the assessee which again was dismissed being beyond the period of limitation. Both these arguments were ....