TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,26,028/- on 2nd July, 2014 under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as per the Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18th June, 2012 of accumulated / unutilized Cenvat Credit availed on Service Tax paid on input services for the financial years 2008-09 to 2009-10 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 found to be time barred as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1942, read with Notification No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, 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. 1.4 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 applicable in the case of refund of Cenvat Credit is not acceptable and the Adjudicating Authority has righ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund 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); Commissioner vs. Swagat Synthetics - 2008(232) ELT 413 (Guj.) and STI India Ltd vs. Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 processing refund. It has been prayed that the appeal may be allowed and case may be remanded back ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 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 observed that the first issue is "whether the appellant was eligible for the Cenvat Credit when they ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce 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 exempted is not sustainable. From the above discussion, which is supported by various judgments, we hold....