2026 (5) TMI 1734

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012. A show-cause notice was issued to them on 11.02.2014 pointing out certain discrepancy in the refund claim filed which was responded by the appellant through their reply dated 12.03.2014. On adjudication, the refund claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who also rejected their appeal. Hence, they filed appeal before the CESTAT and vide Final Order No.22034-22040/2017 dated 29.08.2017, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the refund claim. Also, in appeal No. E/21705/2018, refund claim for an amount of Rs.1,11,15,319/- filed for the period from January 2013 to March 2013, on rejection of the said claim, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and on rejection of appeal, the appellant approached the Tribunal which remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. In the de novo proceedings of the above two matters, the adjudicating authority, relating to appeal No. E/21704/2018, sanctioned part of the refund claim i.e Rs.28,96,905/- for the period October 2012 to December 2012....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat for the quarter October 2012 to December 2012, the refund claim was filed on 05.12.2013. Similarly, in appeal E/21703/2018, for the quarter April 2016 to June 2016, the refund claim was filed on 30.06.2017; and an amount of Rs.62,74,511/- was rejected on the ground of limitation. He has submitted that for computation of limitation of one year, the last date of the quarter in both the cases is relevant, hence the limitation of period would expire on 31.12.2013 and 30.06.2017; therefore, the refund claims are within time. In support, he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Suretex Prophylactics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Bangalore [2020(373) ELT 481 (Kar.)]. Further, he has submitted that in view of the above judgment, the appellant are eligible to the claim of cash refund of accumulated cenvat credit which is rejected on the ground of time bar. 3.2. He has further submitted that with regard to reduction of the refund claim of Rs.82,12,837/- by an amount of Rs.7,40,914/-, the appellant accepts the same calculation and the refund due to them would be Rs.75,28,331/- which is rejected on the ground of limitation. Further, he has submitted t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich is exported without payment of service tax, shall be allowed refund of CENVAT credit as determined by the following formula subject to procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified by the Board by notification in the Official Gazette : specified in sub-rule Refund amount = (Export turnover of goods + Export turnover of services) x Net CENVAT credit Total turnover Where,- (A) "Refund amount" means the maximum refund that is admissible; (B) "Net CENVAT credit" means total CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services by the manufacturer or the output service provider reduced by the amount reversed in terms of sub-rule (5C) of Rule 3, during the relevant period; (C) "Export turnover of goods" means the value of final products and intermediate products cleared during the relevant period and exported without payment of Central Excise duty under bond or letter of undertaking; (D) "Export turnover of services" means the value of the export service calculated in the following manner, namely :- Export turnover of services = payments received during the relevant period for export servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No 5/2006 - Central Excise (N.T), dated the 14th March, 2006, published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R 156(E), dated the 14th March, 2006, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby directs that refund of CENVAT credit shall be allowed subject to the procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations as specified below, namely:-. 2.0 Safeguards, conditions and limitations.- Refund of CENVAT Credit under rule 5 of the said rules, shall be subjected to the following safeguards, conditions and limitations, namely:- (a) the manufacturer or provider of output service shall submit not more than one claim of refund under this rule for every quarter: provided that a person exporting goods and service simultaneously, may submit two refund claims one in respect of goods exported and other in respect of the export of services every quarter. (b) in this notification quarter means a period of three consecutive months with the first quarter beginning from 1st April of every year, second quarter from 1st July, third quarter from 1st October and fourth quarter from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proprietor in the case of proprietary firm or karta in case of Hindu Undivided Family as the case may be; (ii) any partner in case of a partnership firm; (iii) a person authorized by the Board of Directors in case of a limited company; (iv) in other cases, a person authorized to sign the refund application by the entity. (d) The applicant shall file the refund claim along with the copies of bank realization certificate in respect of the services exported. (e) The refund claim shall be accompanied by a certificate in Annexure A-I, duly signed by the auditor (statutory or any other) certifying the correctness of refund claimed in respect of export of services. (f) The Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to whom the application for refund is made may call for any document in case he has reason to believe that information provided in the refund claim is incorrect or insufficient and further enquiry needs to be caused before the sanction of refund claim. (g) At the time of sanctioning the refund claim the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner shall satisfy himself or herself in respect of the correctness o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled beyond one year from the last date of the last month of the quarters and as such, they were clearly time-barred. Insofar as remaining 4 claims, matter has been remanded to the original authority, against which there is no appeal by the revenue. Hence, we answer the substantial question of law No. 2 that Tribunal was right in holding that the "relevant date for computation of time-limit will be the end of the quarter" in which FIRC's are received as per the extant Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-6-2012. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that refund claim was filed within one year from the last date of the quarter for which the claim was filed i.e. for the quarter October 2012 to December 2012, the refund claim was filed on 05.12.2013 and for the period April 2016 to June 2016, refund claim was filed on 11.05.2017, therefore the refund claims are filed within time. Hence, rejection of the refund claims considering the same as hit by limitation prescribed under the provisions of Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 cannot be sustained. 9. Next, the issue of admissibility of interest against the refund claims....