2023 (2) TMI 1316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase are that the appellant had filed cash refund claims of accumulated cenvat credit during the period January, 2010 to March, 2020, April 2010 to June 2010, July 2010 to September 2010 and April 2012 to June 2012 on 30/12/2010, 31/03/2011, 28/03/2013 and 29/06/2011 respectively. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims on the ground that the same are time-barred as the date of receipt of consideration for export service received be considered as the 'relevant date' as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn, rejected the appeals. Hence the present appeals. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate Shri Ravi Raghavan for the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hey are entitled to cash refund in terms of Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 on rejection of the refund claim by the impugned order; the only restriction imposed for claiming refund under the said new provision is that the credit lying in balance on the appointed day was not carried forward under the CGST Act, 2017. It is his submission that the appellant had not transitioned the unutilised cenvat credit lying in balance as 'input tax credit' (ITC) under GST regime through TRAN-1 procedure, therefore the refund of the credit be allowed to them under Section 142(6)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is his contention that the appellant had not reversed the credit till date and the said credit is still lying in their ST-3 returns filed for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to the cash refund of the accumulated cenvat credit for the relevant periods mentioned above are admissible or otherwise. The said refund claims have been rejected on the ground of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned AR vehemently argued that the relevant date for computing the period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in scrutinising the refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, be in accordance with the principles of law laid in Span Infotech's case (supra). On the second limb of argument that in any case, the appellants are entitled to cash refund under the Section 142(6)(a) of CGST Act, the learn....