TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....registered with Service Tax Department with STC No. AAECM2477LSD002 dated 12.04.2011 for providing taxable services under the category "Information Technology Software Service." The appellant had filed two applications for refund of Rs. 1,16,28,469/- for the period from April 2016 to June 2016 on 26.03.2017 and another application for refund of Rs. 1,35,75,175/- for the period July 2016 to September 2016 for refund of unutilized and accumulated CENVAT credit of Service Tax on various inputs services under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 and under the provisions of Notification No. 27/2012-CE-(NT) dated 18.06.2012, with the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Yelahanka Division, Bangalore-IV Commissionerate. On verification of the refund claims, some....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedent of the High Court and the Supreme Court. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal entirely on a new ground which was not there in the Order-in-Original. He further submitted that the issue, as to whether Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Act, is applicable in the case of refund of unutilized CENVAT credit claimed in terms of the Rule 5 of the CCR, is no longer res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. In support of his submission, he cited the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Thus the duty paid on inputs by the supplier has already been actually received by the exchequer. Therefore, this contention is, to say the least misconceived. 4.2. Ld. Counsel also submitted that an identical issue has come up before this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Netapp India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex. reported in 2018-TIOL-1295-CESTAT-BANG, wherein this Tribunal vide its Final Order dated 20.02.2018 relying upon the aforesaid judgments has taken a view that the appellant is entitled to the interest even in respect of the delayed sanction of the refund of the unutilized credits. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant on completely different grounds which is bey....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in case of refund filed under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004. Hence, Section 11BB is applicable to refund claim. In this regard, following decisions have also been relied upon: (i) Shroff United Chemicals Ltd. Vs. UOI, 2011 (24) STR (Bom.) = 2011-TIOL-411-HC-MUM-ST. (ii) UOI Vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd., 2014 (305) ELT 396 (Bom.) = 2012-TIOL-109-HC-MUM-CX. (iii) CCE, Pune-II Vs. Sulaki Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2014 (310) ELT 511 (Bom.) = 2014-TIOL-363-HC-CX. 4.4. Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the Circular No. 570/61/2002-CX dated 01.10.2002 issued by CBEC wherein CBEC had clarified that the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act gets automatically attracted for any refund sanctioned beyond a period of three months. Ld. Counsel further....