TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise (Appeals - III), Mumbai. Claims for April 2016 to June 2016, July 2016 to September 2016 and October 2016, seeking refund of accumulated CENVAT credit of Rs. 54,75,285, Rs. 34,57,425 and Rs. 75,90,823 respectively, were allowed to the extent of 23,75,346, Rs. 31,28,513 and Rs. 67,28,205. Two aspects were highlighted by both sides: one relating to ineligibility owing to infirmities in the claim and the primary issue of inclusion of credit that had been restored consequent upon rejection of claims for previous periods in the computation of entitlement in subsequent claims. 2. The appellant is a 'hundred percent export oriented unit (EOU)' holding 'letter of permission (LoP)' from the competent authority under the Foreign Trade Policy and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this stage for which the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV [2019-TIOL-418-SC-CUS-LB] barring refund, except in circumstances of assessment having been successfully challenged, has been cited. 4. In the light of such complicated submissions, it is necessary to peruse the reasons for denial of refund of Rs. 30,99,939, Rs. 3,28,912 and Rs. 8,62,618, for the three periods. The claims for the first quarter and third quarter of 2016-17 were held as ineligible to the extent of Rs. 29,89,366 and Rs. 4,28,264 for having been attributable to earlier periods for which the refund that had been not sanctioned was recredited in CENVAT credit account for the impugned periods and not entitled to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e absence of proceedings initiated under the authority of rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, availment of credit is not to be revisited. Therefore, the denial of refund on the presumption of ab initio ineligibility will not stand and refund procedure cannot be claimed to be a substitute for recovery. The denial on these grounds is without authority of law. 7. The submission of Learned Authorized Representative that adoption of revised turnover for the second quarter, notwithstanding at the initiative of the competent authority, precludes challenge at this stage is not tenable. The appellant has established that the turnover in the three returns for July - September of 2016 was Rs. 16,77,42,012 against the Rs. 15,64,13,273 deployed in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of the Tribunal in Spiderlogic India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune [2017 (8) TMI 553 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Learned Authorized Representative attempted to distinguish the situation in this decision from the facts in the impugned dispute inasmuch as the exclusion of the amount in re Spiderlogic India Pvt Ltd occurred before the application of the formula. The difference between the two is not easily apparent as the issue in both disputes was merely the question of whether ineligible amount of a particular quarter, when restored, can be included in a subsequent quarter for computation of credit available for attribution to subsequent exports. If the argument of Learned Authorized Representative is taken to its logical conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Revenue that, in the present dispute, the credit, even if originally availed in another quarter, was not eligible for restoration, to the extent of rejection, after such rejection. 10. The determination in re Spiderlogic India Pvt Ltd that '6. From the reading of the above Rule, it can be seen that for the purpose of refund, the net cenvat credit means the total cenvat credit availed on inputs and input services by the manufacturer or output service provider reduced by the amount reversed in terms of sub- rule 5 (c) of Rule 3, during the relevant period. In the facts of the present case, there is no dispute that the credit of Rs. 231, 688/- was availed by appellants during the relevant period April 2013 to June 2013 under the author....