TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by Assistant Commissioner Service Tax, Surat and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. 1.1 The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 28,11,300/- on 2nd July, 2014 under Rule 5 of service tax Rules, 2004 as per the Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18th June, 2012 of accumulated / unutilized CENVAT Credit availed of service tax paid on input services for the financial years, 2008-09 to 2013-14 lying as on 31st March, 2014. 1.2 On scrutiny of the claim, it was noticed that the refund application was not filed within the specified period as per the condition no. 3 (ii)(b) of the Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT). It was also noticed that the claim was not on quarterly basis. The claim was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the quarter of the year for which refund for inputs / input services has been submitted. However, it appeared that the refund claim was not in consonance with the goods exported during the period. The appellant had filed claim on 2nd July, 2014 for the refund of Cenvat Credit in balance as on 31st March, 2014, therefore, the claim is hit by time-bar. 1.5 Feeling aggrieved from the Order-in-Original dated 29th September, 2015, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal dated 26th September, 2016 and upheld the Order-in-Original. The learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the appellant's contention that the limitation, as provided under Section 11B, is not applicabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... June, 2012. The refund application was also time barred. In fact, the appellant had filed the refund application in terms of Notification No. 27/2012-CE dated 18.06.2012. The condition no. 3 (ii)(b) of the said notification provides that refund application shall be filed before the expiry of period specified in section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the law of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act did not apply to refund of Cenvat Credit accumulated owing to export of finished goods. In this connection, the appellant cited the decision in CCE Hyderabad vs. M/s. Hyundai Motors India Engineering reported in 2011 (21) STR 667 (Tri.-Bang.); Global Food Industries vs. Commissioner - 2010 (262) ELT 627 (Tribunal);....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d counsel for the appellant also argued that the Appeal involving identical facts has been decided by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Kapu Gems vs. CCE & ST-Surat 2024 (1) TMI 1118 - CESTAT Ahmedabad. In this appeal, the Tribunal has held that for availment of CENVAT Credit or refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, registration is not mandatory and it is a settled legal position. It has also been held that export of exempted goods without bond / LUT does not bar refund of input / input Service Tax and it is also a settled legal position. The Hon'ble Tribunal with these observations, remanded the case back to the Adjudicating Authority and directed the adjudicating authority to verify the documents for pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Credit of input service. On 22nd December, 2014 the appellant again filed the refund claim by curing the defects as pointed out the learned Assistant Commissioner. The appellant placed reliance upon various decisions to show that the appellant was eligible for refund claim of unutilized Cenvat Credit for export of goods. On 20th February, 2014, the Assistant Commissioner returned the refund claim on the ground that the same was not under rules and regulations. Against this order the appellant preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected vide order dated 20th May, 2014. Feeling aggrieved from the above mentioned order dated 20th May, 2014, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. In the order, the Tribunal has observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, the conclusion in the impugned order that the appellant is not eligible for exemption since the goods have not been exported under bond or LUT cannot be sustained. The Tribunal has also observed that execution of bond is only a procedure and its violation should not disentitled the appellant from taking of credit and claiming refund thereof. 4.4 The Tribunal has further held that in view of above judgments delivered by this Tribunal as well as various High Courts, it is the settled legal position that even though manufactured goods / output services are exempted, refund of service tax against export of the same cannot be denied. Therefore, in the present case, denial of refund claim on the ground that the goods exported are exempte....