2024 (7) TMI 1257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../60303/2020, are enaged in the activity of software publishing, consultancy and software maintenance and are registered for provision of "ITSS" and "BSS"; the appellants having rendered services to overseas entities filed various claims, for refund/ rebate of CENVAT credit, in terms of Notification No.27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012; a Show Cause Notice dated 05.12.2018 was issued to the appellants seeking to reject the refund claims; the Original Authority vide Order dated 22.10.2019 rejected the refund claims for a total of Rs.16,49,23,648/- on the grounds that the refund claims are time barred and that the appellants are not entitled to refund of CENVAT credit as they have provided only intermediary services; on an appeal preferred by the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der the refund claims time-barred. She relies on the following cases: • Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-l versus Arya Exports and Industries 2005(192) E.L.T. 89-Delhi High Court • Repro India Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur 2016 (43) S.T.R. 203-CESTAT Mumbai • UM Cables Limited versus Union of India 2013 (293) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.) • Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd. versus Union of India 2016 (341) E.L.T. 44 (All.) • M/s Heg Limited verus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 730 (Tri. -Del.) • Suzuki Motorcycle (1) Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-Ill, Gurgaon 2018 (2) TMI 133-CESTAT Chandigarh â€....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the DGFT Website; therefore, the original authority was legally correct in holding that the refund claims are barred by limitation; to that extent, the learned Commissioner‟s order is liable to be set aside. On the merits of the case, he submits that the original authority has given reasoned findings for holding that the appellants have rendered only "Intermediary Service". 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. Brief issues that require to be considered in the instant case are as to whether the applications for refund filed by the appellants are barred by limitation under Notification No.27/2012 and as to whether the  appellants were supplying merely "Intermediary Services" and thus, are not eligible for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Banswara Syntex Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that: 8. So far as the interpretation of Section 11B of the Act of 1944 is concerned, no doubt that the golden principle of interpretation, at the first  instance, is always required to be applied while interpreting a statute, but in relation to the provision in question it would be appropriate to notice that it mentions the 'date relevant' and further that a claim application can be filed by placing relevant documents along with it, as such, the provision is not conveying the simple meaning, as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents want to put forth. 6. Coming to the issue whether....