TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said Order-in-Original. 2. The background of this appeal is that the appellants were, interalia, availing Cenvat Credit in respect of input and input services and the department noticed that they had taken a credit of Rs. 15,95,280/- in respect of "insurance premium" paid for group insurance services. According to Department, the credit availed on medical insurance was irregular in view of sub-rule (l) to Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and therefore they demanded an amount of Rs. 15,95,280/- towards irregularly availed Cenvat Credit under Rule 14 of CCR read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. In the meanwhile, the appellants informed the Department that they have reversed the service tax "under protest" cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....date for this refund application is the date of order of the CESTAT passed on 05.05.2016. He also examined the provisions under the Central Excise Act, specifically Clause (ec) of explanation B to Section 11B, and held that the time limit for the said refund is applicable from the date of the order of the CESTAT i.e. 05.05.2016, therefore, making the refund application barred by limitation and therefore rejected the refund claim dated 12.07.2021. 5. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the issue was examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) who has mainly relied on legal provisions of Section 11B and the facts of the case to decide whether there is any provision for not applying limitation in case of payment "under protest" or otherwi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such situation. 8. Learned DR reiterates the grounds taken by Commissioner (Appeals) for rejecting the refund claim and emphasises that appeals on merits of eligibility of input service or otherwise were filed before the appointed day 01.07.2017 and issues were also settled prior to appointed day by Appellate Authority and Tribunal and that the relevant date would be passing of order dated 05.05.2016 by the Tribunal as it had reached finality and appellants has clearly not filed refund claim before expiry of one year before the said date and infact they filed only on 12.07.2021. He has also relied upon certain judgments in support of this. 9. Heard both the sides and perused records. 10. The first issue in Commissioner (Appeals) in his r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Department who went in appeal against the said order before the Tribunal, order of the Tribunal dated 05.05.2016 makes it a finality to the issue in so far as the issue of eligibility of the credit was concerned and as a consequence, they would have been eligible to take the credit either Suo-moto or under intimation to the Department within one year of said order. However, they did not do so. They have admittedly also not taken this credit before the appointed date 01.07.2017 which could have been migrated through TRAN-1 route under GST Regime. 11. Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Malwa Industries Vs UOI [2018 (361) ELT 8....