TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey were eligible for refund/rebate of the Service Tax paid on input services under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit rules, 2004, and that believing that they were eligible for the refund in terms of both Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. dated 18.06.2012 and Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012, they filed five different claims for refund of the above input services. It appears that they relied upon only Notification No. 27/2012 under Rule 5, instead of the Notification under which they could have filed rebate claim. 1.2 It appears that the said claims for refund came to be rejected vide Orders-in-Original dated 28.05.2015, apparently on the ground of non-jurisdiction, non-submission of documents, etc. It appears that the appellant prefe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... c. Even the sanction under Notification No. 41/2012S.T. is not legally correct inasmuch as the exporter had taken CENVAT Credit in violation of condition (d) of the said Notification. 2.2 It appears that the appellant also filed its counter, thereby supporting the grant of refund. But however, it appears that the first appellate authority vide impugned Order-in-Appeal Nos. 57-61/2021(CTA-I)(D) dated 16.04.2021 allowed the Revenue's appeal. It is against this order that the present appeals have been filed by the appellant. 3.1 It is the case of the appellant that it has fulfilled all the conditions of Notification No. 41/2012 (supra) for sanctioning of the refund/rebate as claimed by it. It is their case that: - * ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of C.Ex., Jaipur-I [2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 39 (Tri. - Del.)] iii. Automative Design & Engrg. Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T., Hyderabad [2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 93 (Tri. - Hyd.)] iv. Sundaram Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Madurai-II [2014 (301) E.L.T. 87 (Tri. - Chennai)] 3.4 They also contended that it is a well settled position of law that mentioning a wrong Notification in the claim and later on substituting with correct Notification would not render the claim ineligible, in support of which they have relied on the following: - i. R.S. Infraprojects (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Ghaziabad [2017 (358) E.L.T. 1188 (Tri. - All.)] ii. Monarch Catalyst Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Thane....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to contend that the Bench had made it amply clear that the remand had been made for the limited purpose of granting opportunity of hearing to the appellant for pleading both facts and law as well as evidence. 5. We have perused the impugned order and we have gone through the submissions made during the course of arguments. 6. The first appellate authority has, in a nutshell, held that the original authority should not have entertained the claims of the appellant under Notification No. 41/2012 (supra) which was made for the first time and hence the same was clearly time-barred. He has further held that though he agreed that the export incentives granted to the exporter should not be denied merely on procedural lapses, but however, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... positive observation in favour of the assessee and ordered for a decision on merit. (iv) The original authority, by allowing the new ground for refund under Notification No. 41/2012-S.T. dated 29.06.2012, has gone beyond the mandate of the Final Orders of the CESTAT (supra). (v) Any new ground becomes a new claim, which is governed by period of limitation, which was not considered by the original authority. (vi) The assessee's eligibility vis-à-vis claim under Notification No. 41/2012 ibid. was made even before the Commissioner(A), who had rejected the same. (vii) The rebate granted under Notification No. 41/2012 ibid. was incorrect since the assessee had availed CENVAT Credit even though they had reversed it, which was in c....