Page 148 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

482 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

quarters and time-barred - Matter remanded to original Authority for adjudi-
cation of remaining 4 claims - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 13]
Appeals disposed of
CASES CITED
Collector v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. — 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) — Referred ................................. [Para 7]
Commissioner v. Aam Services India Pvt. Ltd. — 2016 (42) S.T.R. 760 (Tribunal) — Referred ..... [Para 7]
Commissioner v. GTN Engineering (I) Ltd. — 2012 (28) S.T.R. 426 (Mad.) — Referred ................. [Para 7]
Commissioner v. SG Analytics Pvt. Ltd. — 2016 (45) S.T.R. 131 (Tribunal) — Referred ................. [Para 7]
Commissioner v. Span Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. — 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 200 (Tribunal)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 7]
Commissioner v. Swagat Synthetics — 2008 (232) E.L.T. 413 (Guj.) — Referred ............................. [Para 7]
Deepak Spinners Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (302) E.L.T. 132 (Tribunal) — Referred ............... [Para 7]
Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2005 (185) E.L.T. 19 (Guj.) — Referred ..... [Para 7]
mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2012 (27) S.T.R. 134 (Kar.)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 7]
Oceans Connect India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (46) S.T.R. 858 (Tribunal)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 7]
Quality BPO Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (39) S.T.R. 230 (Tribunal)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 7]
Union of India v. Uttam Steel Ltd. — 2015 (319) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.) — Referred ............................... [Para 11]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Dakshina Murthy R. with K.S. Naveen Ku-
mar and M.S. Nagaraja, with Smt. Shruti Mathew,
Advocates, for the Appellant.
Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate, for the Respond-
ent.
[Judgment per : Aravind Kumar, J.]. - CEA No. 31/2017 came to be ad-
mitted on 8-8-2018. However, CEA Nos. 32/2017 and 33/2017 were ordered to be
posted along with CEA No. 31/2017 since substantial questions of law had not
been formulated.
2. We have heard the Learned Advocates appearing for parties and
formulated following substantial questions of law on 26-2-2020, which reads :
“(i) Whether under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 prior to and
from 1-4-2012 appellant would be entitled to seek refund without
reference to the limitation? Or
(ii) Whether the time prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 would be applicable for claiming refund of CENVAT
Credit?”
CEA No. 35/2018 came to be admitted on 23-7-2019 to consider the sub-
stantial questions of law indicated thereunder.
(i) Whether, the Tribunal is justified and correct in upholding rejection
of the claims for refund of untilized Cenvat credit filed quarterly by
the Appellant on 1-10-2013 for the period from July 2012 to Septem-
ber 2012 and on 3-1-2014 for the period from October 2009 - Decem-
ber 2009 to April 2012 - June 2012 on the ground that the Applica-
tions were filed beyond one year despite there is no definition of
“relevant date” for computation of the period of one year for claim-
ing refund of untilized CENVAT credit in Section 11B of the CEA,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  148