TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitions is the same. To put it in a nutshell, that central theme/core issue is refund of CENVAT credit claimed by writ petitioner and rejection of the same by the respondent. 4. Considering the limited scope of the writ petitions on hand and the narrow compass on which instant writ petitions turn, it is not necessary to set out facts in great details. Short facts shorn of elaboration are that writ petitioners filed six revision applications (pertaining to refund claim qua CENVAT credit) in the period between October 2010 and March 2012. 5. There was adjudication and the original authority passed six different orders, sanctioning a part of the claim made by the writ petitioner. These six orders-in-original were carried in appeal by writ petitioners by way of six separate statutory appeals inter alia under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 8 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. To be noted, the Appellate Authority is Commissioner (Appeals - II) and the Appellate Authority passed six separate orders wherein certain heads of refund of CENVAT credit claim was allowed and part relief was granted to appellant (writ petitioner) in the appeals. For the sake of convenience, operative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Impugned Order i. disallowing canvat credit on Air Travel service, Forex Exchange service and Rent a cab service is set aside with consequential relief of refund as provided under the relevant Rule. ii. disallowing Cenvat credit on Insurance Service and Outdoor Catering (Food Bills) is upheld. iii. disallowing Cenvat credit on Telecommunication Service is upheld. 19. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order-in-Original No.21/2013: SANCTION ORDER I, therefore, sanction a refund of Rs. 6,56,917/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventeen only) to M/s.GIL Shared Service Pvt. Ltd Block II & III, Ground Floor, No.184-187, Templesteps, Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai -15, under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with notifications issued there under and read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service tax Law in terms of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. I reject an amount of Rs. 1,85,143/- for the reasons discussed above. I hereby direct the assessee to reverse the eligible and ineligible amount in their Cenvat account. Order-in-Appeal No.303/2015: 20. In view of the foregoing discussions, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ara 7) from their Cenvat account. Order-in-Appeal No.323/2015: 23. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Impugned Order i. disallowing canvat credit on Air Travel service, and Rent a cab service is set aside with consequential relief of refund as provided under the relevant Rule. ii. deduction of export turnover to the tune of Rs. 1,38,11,303/- as time barred is set aside with consequential relief of refund as provided under the relevant Rule. 24. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order-in-Original No.40/2014: SANCTION ORDER I, sanction refund of Rs. 9,14,088/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fourteen Thousand and eighty eight only) to M/s.GIL Shared Service Pvt. Ltd Block II & III, Ground Floor, No.184-187, Templesteps, Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai -15, under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with notifications issued there under and read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service tax Law in terms of Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. The assessee are directed to reverse an amount of Rs. 9,68,193/- (refund amount Rs. 9,14,088 + ineligible Cenvat Credit Rs. 54,105/- as detailed in para 7) from their Cenvat account. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the delay citing 2015 floods/deluge in Chennai City. With regard to deluge in Chennai city, the respondent vide the impugned orders has held that the floods in Chennai happened in the first week of December 2015. Writ petitioner has produced orders-in-original, which are also in December 2015, i.e., after the first week of December 2015 and therefore, this cannot be accepted is the basis on which impugned orders have been passed. 11. Therefore, two points now fall for consideration before this Court. 12. Relevant date, when the revision is made as a consequence of a direction of an appellate authority, is the date of such order or direction. This is contained in explanation to Section 11B [(ec) of (B) to be precise] of the 'Central Excise Act, 1944' (hereinafter 'CE Act' for brevity) and relevant date as statutorily explained reads as follows: '(B) 'relevant date' means,_ (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (ec) in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any Court, the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction.' (underlining made by this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion for filing a second refund application, the question of limitation does not arise. Further, the time limit under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act would be for the first application and the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and therefore there can be no limitation in respect of the proceedings pursuing the refund claim. Accordingly, both the questions of law are applications were rejected by the Original Authority on 09.03.2004 and 13.03.2004 stating that the said applications have been filed belatedly. As against this order of the Original Authority, further appeals have been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeals by order dated 31.08.2004, thereby confirmed the second rejection order of the Original Authority. Aggrieved by such an order, the respondent went before the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal by order dated 10.11.2006. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court raising the above-mentioned substantial questions of law.' 16. With regard to the second point that floods were only in the first week of December 2015. It is incorrect and untenable. It is untenable because the impact of ....